EVERYBODY wants unity. But they all want unity on their terms. Nobody is prepared to make the compromises that solidarity demands.
Perhaps instead of thinking in terms of needing unity in order to act, we might better consider acting in order to create unity. What the independence movement lacks is a core around which it might coalesce. The focus, encouraged by the SNP and much of the “old guard” of the independence movement, has been on creating a “vision” of Scotland with independence restored. But there is not and cannot be a single “vision” on which all agree.
READ MORE: Scottish Government announces plan to help islanders with living costs
A “vision” has a multitude of variables. The more complete and polished a “vision” becomes, the greater the likelihood that certain fixed aspects will alienate those with a different “vision”.
The same is true of policy agendas. If unity requires agreement on a policy agenda then it is never going to happen. The idea that there is a single “vision” or policy agenda or “message” that will both unite the Yes movement and win support for Scotland’s cause is nothing short of idiocy.
The single greatest cause of disunity in the independence movement is time. Time allowed positions to develop and to become more distinct, discrete, and vigorously defended. There is no way to reverse this process. Reversing it would require that all positions be abandoned. That is just not going to happen. There is no possible synthesis of positions which are mutually incompatible. There are fundamental issues on which any large group of people will inevitably be divided. Such as EU membership, to give just one example.
READ MORE: Scotland could be hit 'with £22bn nuclear clean-up bill'
The original Yes movement was able to achieve the unity it did because we were all focused on the same thing – winning the referendum. Issues such as EU membership did not loom large enough to create divisions because we were all too preoccupied with working towards a Yes vote. Diversity such as that which characterised the early Yes movement will always tend to become division over time.
There was no opportunity for division to arise until activists had idle time in the wake of the 2014 referendum. With no common purpose on which to focus, and no leadership to maintain that focus, activists turned to other matters. For ten grinding years, the Yes movement has been devoid of leadership and without a common purpose. We cannot recreate the kind of unity the Yes movement had in 2013/2014. But we can restore that common purpose. Simply saying the common goal is independence won’t cut it anymore. Once again, that was fine when we all thought of independence as the same thing. Which we were able to do because we didn’t think about it very much at all.
READ MORE: Our Scottish independence movement is real, permanent and resolute
Once we had the opportunity to do so, ideas of what independence meant began to diverge. You cannot build an effective single-issue political campaign around a contested concept. I desperately hope that statement needs no further explication. It may seem counter-intuitive, but a campaign to restore Scotland’s independence cannot be built on the idea of independence. Because there is no single shared idea of independence. What we did before we cannot do again. The place we were in then no longer exists. We cannot return. We are, in a very real sense, starting from scratch. Or at least, we will be when we start.
Therein lies the rub. We haven’t started. There has been no start made on building the new movement and the new campaign. We have spent a decade waiting for somebody to do something while our politicians exhibited neither the desire nor the will nor the ability nor the intention to do what we were waiting for. There cannot be a common purpose until there is a purpose that all can share. There is no question that this purpose must be ending the Union (as opposed to “winning” independence). What is lacking is a credible strategy towards this from any of the nominally pro-independence parties. Given such a proposal, I have no doubt that the independence movement will come together to make it work.
Peter A Bell
via thenational.scot
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel