Defining Yes and No

Psychologists tell us the mental process called rationalisation is a term which actually does not mean ‘being rational’. Rather it means justifying a lot of things to make our self feel comfortable with a decision we made, or its outcome.

We seek to justify our irrational beliefs or attitudes with high-minded motives. No surprise, then, this leads to the No voter principle that somehow self-governance will only result in chaos because protest does more harm than good.

All revolutions overturn the status quo. I can’t imagine Trotsky in the pub with Lenin saying, “This revolution idea, the Royal family are going to be ever so upset. Is there another way we can rid the people of their poverty without storming the Winter Palace?”

Psychologists suggest the real reason people voted No may be cowardice. They believed what they wanted to believe because it made them feel comfortable and safe. We rationalise the discreditable motive by inventing a creditable reason.

A profound difference.

Scotland wants to re-join the international community as a mature nation state, no longer given growth retarding injections to keep it ever needful of a nanny, whereas England looks inwards preferring isolationism: east, west, England’s best.

That said, we had better be able to define what we mean by ‘better in Europe.’ To me it means cosmopolitanism, disappearing borders, common institutions, harmony, and shared prosperity.

Beware, semanticists can always make it clear to you that black is white.

• Fanatical unionists are guaranteed to show,
• That ‘Yes’ is but a nearer form of ‘No.’

Scotland the fascist state

Defining is imperative when throwing abuse around. Take the ubiquitous use of ‘fascist’ thrown around Twitter every day. It can cover brutal repressive regimes, the authoritarian, the anti-socialistic, militaristic nationalism, various types of communism, or the democratically elected government of Scotland.

Those who bandy it about like sweeties actually mean fascism as practised by Germany, and probably Italy during the Second World War. They forget Franco’s Spain where half a million ex-pat Brits reside without paying their taxes an Franco lived a long life,

We are told Scotland has one of the strongest devolved parliaments in the world. That is some claim. To define Scotland ‘enjoys the greatest powers of any devolved nation’ actually means fewer rights than the people of Quebec, Gibraltar, and in many regards Northern Ireland which is almost an autonomous state by itself.

I find it amusing that according to extreme unionists, Scotland is not a nation but a subsumed province. That’s their definition of 1,000 years of Scottish history.

Exactly what do you mean by, ‘what do you mean?’

I recall the BBC political interviewer Gordon Brewer asking an SNP panellist to define what he meant by a ‘fairer and more just society.’ As the politician stumbled over what he thought was obvious to everybody, it was obvious to me he had not thought it through beyond that slogan. Perhaps this is symptomatic of why the SNP are unable to define when exactly a second referendum is likely – they just don’t know.

A common lack of definition heard often is over ‘values’ – our beliefs. Those values, we are told, are ‘values’ shared by people in the North of England, ‘so what’s so special about Scotland?’ – as if those living in Newcastle and Leeds are a nation state unto themselves, one with lochs and mountains.

It is true we share a common humanity. Put crudely, the leveller ‘we all use the toilet’, is not the same as political ambitions, or definitions of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Full democracy

We’re told we have all the democracy we need, the same as enjoyed by England. What is the definition of full democracy? It means one thing to a unionist, another to an independence supporter.

The former tells us genuine self-governance is impossible if Scotland retains the pound sterling, or joins the European Union. But what is his definition of self-governance?

All nations give up a little of their sovereignty to co-operate with another nation, but the loss is a small one and not detrimental to civil rights and liberty. The UK has always talked with pride of its ‘special’ relationship with the USA. In reality, that relationship has meant accepting US foreign policy including unjust wars in return for US protection, a huge sacrifice of sovereignty.

The democracy we are supposed to be delirious about doesn’t include keeping all we earn, vetoing wars Westminster instigates end-to-end, or having the right to administrate welfare. We are suppose to be sanguine about England exercising those powers because we are incapable of making grown-up decisions.

I know my mind!

The point of this stroll around definitions is, we ought to know what we’re discussing before we discuss it. Like the philistine’s attitude to art, “If I think it’s nice, it’s nice” it is a denial of understanding, a surface, bombastic, go by the looks, assessment of things.

When a political opponent dives in with the blunt dismissal of an absolutist, he has forgotten to ask for, and acknowledge he understands, our meaning.

When we use abstractions, words like democracy, freedom, capitalism, socialism, or communism, be sure our meaning and theirs is clear. If it isn’t, don’t argue, move on.

French philosopher Voltaire said, “Before I will discuss anything with you, you must define your terms.” And so should we.

 

***************************