AYE OR NAW?
A few days ago a journalist (@Gary_Bainbridge, well worth a follow, highly entertaining) posted a link on Twitter to this article commending it for its even handedness on a subject that is mostly being addressed in partisan fashion..
I agreed with him that this was a decent attempt to strike a balanced view, but pointed out that even this relatively neutral piece still carried overtones of scaremongering. (Specifically the notion that a Yes result might provoke nasty reactions in the rest of the UK, the sort of idle speculation that damages rational discussion.) I ended up having a brief chat with Gary and it was interesting to have some insight into an interested, but unbiased, English viewpoint.
As most of you will know I'm a Scot, but have lived most of my adult life in England. In recent years I've been able to spend more and more time back in my home city and hope to move there soon. Too late, probably, to be able to register my vote for 18th September. Nonetheless I have taken pains to follow the debates on the subject and feel reasonably well informed. Sufficiently, as I pointed out to Gary, to recognise that the biggest problem is people trying have an argument over the pros and cons of the unknown. No wonder that there are still so many Don't Knows showing up in polls.
This got me thinking what my own view is. When I was asked last year I said I was probably about 70% Yes leaning. I recently tweeted that George Robertson's ludicrous outburst had persuaded me fully into the Yes camp, but that was largely for humourous effect. That 'Forces of Darkness' nonsense deserves to be ridiculed into the gutter where it belongs.
Why are both sides of the argument being so badly presented at times? I note that Gary described the SNP approach as "la-la-la I'm not listening" in their inability to provide concrete answers to real world questions. (Does this mean that people in England automatically associate the Yes movement with the SNP alone? Because it definitely has much wider roots, even amongst some who detest Salmond himself.) Whilst the Better Together campaign has been one of almost unrelenting negativity. "Project Fear" indeed. (They are now trying to address this image in their latest ads, but can they repair that damage?)
The trouble with wanting hard and fast answers to the big questions is that there really aren't any. There can't be. This hasn't been done before (even recent examples such as the Baltic states aren't really comparable) so how can anyone tell what the outcome will be? But politicians aren't geared up to make such admissions, so they will bluster instead, making promises that are largely empty. Neither side can back out of this easily for to do so opens the way for the opposition to fill the vacuum with their own narrative.
If a Yes vote is delivered then the details will be have to be hammered out over months of negotiations and nobody can accurately predict how those will turn out. Both sides will hold trump cards should things turn nasty, but it's hard to see it coming to that. For all the vitriol being bandied about now and in the coming five months the talks will be between two democratically elected governments from friendly nations. The family ties (both metaphorical and literal) between the two countries are such that no elected politician is going to is going to ride roughshod over the human considerations involved.
So if the there aren't all that many facts available on which to base a rational decision then what's left? This certainly isn't the moment to come over all emotional and have a Braveheart moment (and oh, what a truly crap film that was....).
I've tried to think of it on a smaller scale. This feels a bit like deciding whether or not to take up a new job, or to move in with your partner. You've got a lot of information about what that change will be like, but there comes a point where you have to ignore all the unknowns and make a decision, one that will inevitably change the course of your life. And invariably, if you decide to go with it, it's because you feel that you can see the basis for a better life for yourself. It's the possibility of life improving that draws you on. You know it might not work out, but if you don't take the risk then you'll never know if you missed out.
And that, more than anything rational, is what draws me towards the Yes vote. I suppose you could call it hope. A glass half full attitude. If Scotland remains in the UK then little will change for better. (Indeed the persistent rise of right wing extremism in England suggests an outside chance that things might well get much, much worse. There again the UKIP bubble constantly looks on the verge of bursting.) An independent Scotland provides the possibility of a fairer, social democratic country. It's only a possibility of course. But there's only one way to find out....
The polls still suggest there will be a No result. I'm not even sure that would be the best outcome for England. Imagine the impact that having a successful, socially just neighbour might have in revitalising the English left?
And that last sentence perhaps summarises what I'm trying to say here. Forget the facts for now. This is a decision that should appeal to the imagination.
And finally - here’s a writer, a person of imagination, who’s made the journey from No to Yes. She says it better than I can.
