Intellectually Dishonest Tactics

The use of intellectually dishonest tactics is not uncommon in political debate.

Our ability to recognise such tactics is usually proportionate to the degree of cynicism with which we generally regard the politicians in question.

As far as the issue of Scottish independence is concerned, we would do well to treat most of the arguments thrown at us, from either side, with a measure of cynicism and suspicion.

Of course this doesn’t prevent us from being emotionally committed to one side or the other throughout the process; we can’t help how we feel about our country and its place in the world.

It just means that we should treat any given argument with caution until we know exactly what political agenda lies behind it and exactly who has been driving it forward.

Whether it is to avoid the economic upheaval of breaking up the United Kingdom; or whether it is to secure a better deal for those whom remain, there have been some indications that the Unionist campaign could have been driven less by belief in the Union, and more by self-interest and political power.

The argument that Scotland would always be stronger within the United Kingdom, given its negative revenue and expenditure profile, will be submitted by the Unionist campaign to play a central role in the decision making process of those eligible to vote.

Whether it is correct or not, it will have a powerful effect. After all, who would want to find themselves worse off as a result of change?

The argument, that Scotland returns a surplus more often than not, and would continue to develop and grow with greater fiscal autonomy, will be submitted by the Independence campaign – whether it is correct or not.

And that argument will also have a powerful effect. After all, who wouldn’t want to live in a prosperous country with better employment opportunities and greater individual wealth?

But to return to the point about intellectually dishonest tactics, it is difficult not to feel that the Unionist campaign has been seriously undermined by a conversation that Peter Cruddas is said to have had with David Cameron recently, outlining why the UK Government ought to be seen to be defending the Union:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17574289

To appear to support Scotland’s right to self-determination would be to encourage an expectation that the separation would be clean, straight forward and economically beneficial for everyone concerned.

It would set the tone that there would be an amicable split of assets, which is not a desirable outcome for the UK Government.

But to appear to defend the Union would be to put down the marker that independence would be contrary to the ethos, ambitions and wishes of the UK Government. It would put the latter in a good position to negotiate a stronger deal for the remaining countries.

It would set the tone that the UK Government would expect a significant portion of the shared assets by way of compensation, when the inevitable happens.

Naturally, David Cameron would deny that this reflects his position, whereas Alex Salmond would claim it is a perfect reflection of it. Untangling the various knots on both sides of this debate will never be easy.

It is difficult enough trying to weigh up economic facts and figures that purport to predict the future performance of a possible state of affairs.

It is even more difficult finding facts and figures that haven’t been spun in so many different directions by politicians employing intellectually dishonest tactics to suit their own selfish agenda.

‘National Interest’ is a Curious Concept

It is utterly despicable to think that the UK Government’s campaign against Scottish Independence, to mention just one among many other significant issues of national concern, could have been partly influenced by millionaire friends of the Conservative Party.

Not so much because it would have given the unionist campaign an unfair competitive advantage – the Independence campaign has also received private funding from wealthy individuals; but more so because of the wider implications of proactively offering access to senior policy makers in return for substantial donations.

Conservative Party Co-Treasurer, Peter Cruddas, was secretly filmed making startling claims about access to David Cameron and George Osborne in return for substantial, premier league style, donations of upwards of £200,000.

It goes without saying that if you solicit funding from individuals in return for a favourable hearing at the Prime Minister’s table, you immediately undermine the fundamental principles on which a democratic society ought to be built.

It completely destroys the integrity of the democratic process.

Democracy slips into myth status when the policies of a Government are shaped by the financially elite minority who can afford to have their opinions heard, rather than by the rest of us who are given token votes every so often to perpetuate the illusion that we are making a contribution.

It is frustrating and disappointing to think that regardless of the effort we put in at the ground floor level, our real position in society will not change.

We will continue to struggle against the policies shaped in the millionaires’ playground for the interests of the wealthy elite. What occurs in the name of national interest is very rarely in the interests of the majority of working people in the country.

National interest is a curious concept. It is more a tool to cleverly translate the selfish interests of the elite into what appear to be honest political and economic reasons behind Government policy decisions.

When the UK Government claims, with heart felt theatrical integrity, that Scotland is stronger in the UK, you just begin to wonder who is actually driving this policy, and how much they have had to pay for their interests to be pushed.