Echo chamber tourism: questions every unionist should answer

The Scottish Independence debate is currently characterised by rather polarised opinion, with different entrenched points of view being repeated unopposed in the echo chambers of rival camps. The release of GERS figures last week gave me an opportunity to quit the autonomist bubble and spend some time in the unionist echo chamber as I participated in various online discussions about the figures with people who felt they undermined the case for Scottish Independence.

I think it is always a good idea to get out of your comfort zone, leave the pro-independence bubble for a while, and climb into the unionist echo chamber, to get some perspective, gain an appreciation of your opponent's point of view, and avoid confirmation bias. As Aristotle said, the sign of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a point of view without necessarily accepting it.

Unsurprisingly, in the unionist echo chamber you find that the people who are often reduced to mere caricatures within the narrow confines of exclusively pro-independence discourse are in fact just like us, and we (the pro-independence group) in turn provide the raw material of casual derision there. Like us, they often have a strong sentimental attachment to a particular identity, in their case British. They are utterly convinced they are right: their heterodoxy is not part of some cunning ploy. There is the same spectrum of reasonableness, from individuals with whom one can engage in meaningful, informed debate, and with whom one can respectfully disagree on some issues and find common ground on others, to tribalistic simpletons who spurn every offer of intellectual intercourse from their perceived enemy as if it was a potential threat.

There are some differences. There is a sense of confusion, disappointment and anger that old certainties are being questioned, unnecessarily as they see it. This conservatism, with a small 'c', sees a tendency to be more relaxed with positions like climate change denial and structural misogyny, championed by pillars of conservatism such as the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, than one finds among advocates of Scottish Independence.

This is important because it sometimes seems the logical apparatus of positions such as climate change denial is adopted by unionists in their opposition to Scottish Independence. For example, the selectivity with which climate change deniers approach evidence is also manifested in the way unionists handle economic figures, with data examined over whatever time period results in a trend that supports their argument irrespective of the requirements of objectivity, even if it is a blatantly unrepresentative snapshot describing a specific set of circumstances, such as the recent GERS figures.

Those formulating the unionist position are faced with the challenge of ensuring it isn't weighed down with this baggage: making sure it doesn't become just one more cause espoused by those whose privileges are eroded by post-imperial decline and who lash out quixotically with a spurious sense of victimhood against a variety of targets such as fox hunt bans and, indeed, wind farms, and so, as a cause, is just as easily dismissed as those other tantrums.

In contrast, supporters of Scottish Independence are promoting a disruptive and innovative point of view and so are more often allied with other progressive positions reliant on well constructed logically coherent arguments and properly evaluated evidence to achieve the necessary penetration for these points of view. The challenge for those formulating the pro-independence position is ensuring its advocates stay positive, focussed and respectful, to convince others, and where disagreement remains, that it is not dismissed, but forms the basis of a stimulating contest rather than a disgruntled and bad tempered dispute.

It seems there are some unionists who are less satisfied with their victory in the recent referendum than their opponents are with the manner of their own defeat. It is clear that the reason for this is that the objective for these unionists was not really to secure a majority in the vote, despite the way the campaigns were conducted, but to eliminate the pro-independence position entirely, and there is resentment in some quarters that we are still here at all. Unionists continually bring up the issue of a second independence referendum as a result, portraying the merest possibility of one as a massive threat, while accusing their opponents of a degree of obsession only they are displaying. What really threatens them is that support for Scottish Independence should continue at all in any form. For them the choice is between nostalgia and anarchy, and no politically reasonable victory can ever be decisive enough.

Many unionists will not be persuaded to change their minds by us, for the very same reasons many advocates of Scottish Independence will not be persuaded to change their minds by them: given that many of the questions involved are only answerable in hindsight, sentimental attachment to identity determines their opinion. Nevertheless, there are questions we can reasonably ask, even if the most we can hope to achieve is acknowledgement of this irrational aspect of entrenched viewpoints.

We should remember our challenge is to minimise but not to eradicate the irrational. The procedures we use to implement our priorities must be governed by rational considerations, but those priorities themselves have irrational influences, and to pretend otherwise is actually a form of tyranny. Politics is the accommodation of contradictory priorities formulated on an irrational basis. Politics is the reconciliation of two wrong answers, not the promotion of single right answer. That is an administrative and technocratic issue. For example, Scottish Independence should be handled as a matter of domestic Scottish politics, whereas climate change should be dealt with administratively and globally on the basis of the recent Paris agreement.  

So what are the questions every unionist should be able to answer? Let's consider the recent GERS figures and the challenge they pose.

Question 1: either Scotland's current fiscal position is confronted by a short term or a long term challenge. Which is it?

If it is a short term challenge, would you not agree it is the competence of the government of the day rather than the credibility of independence per se that is in question when dealing with it effectively?

Today George Osborne presents his 2016 budget, and a variety of fiscal challenges confronting the UK will be discussed at Westminster. No-one argues that any of these challenges mean the UK should alter its constitutional status and give up its independence. Osborne's incompetence is not mitigated by surrendering sovereignty. So why should the merest possibility that a Scottish government might not perform perfectly when confronted by a short term fiscal challenge be a reason to continue to be denied self-determination?

When we consider the question of EU membership, we see the very architects of Project Fear's scaremongering about Scottish EU membership during the Independence Referendum campaign complain and contradict themselves now the subject is Brexit. Just as we see in the case of Europe, today we will witness hypocrisy so blatant it verges on amnesia as Osborne makes his own fiscal issues a matter of his government's competence rather than the validity of his country's constitution, barely one week after he and his unionist cohorts have been arguing exactly the opposite in relation to Scotland.

Question 2: if it is long term we must ask, what is it that is unique about the Scottish situation that imposes this challenge?

The answer to that, in a country blessed with an abundance of human and natural resources, is that Scotland is not independent. That is principal way in which Scotland differs over a long timescale in comparison with similar nations. If the current fiscal position is an indictment of any constitutional arrangement, logically it can only be an indictment of the Union.

In attempting to argue otherwise the opponents of independence are merely trying to undermine the credibility of independence by suggesting it relies on the competence of a single party. This is the origin of their "SNP Bad" monomania. However the Yes Movement destroyed that spurious conflation forever. As a result the unionists are now engaged in elaborating their own irrelevance because they don't know what else to do other than attack the SNP in an attempt to damage the credibility of Independence.

They are badly damaged by this logical self-mutilation. Consider their unalloyed jubilation at any news item that is detrimental to Scotland. They rejoice at a fall in oil prices because of the adverse impact it will have on Scotland's fiscal position over the short term. There are much more important long term questions to discuss in relation to oil prices, but everything is subordinated to the single issue of preserving the Union by trying in any way possible, at any cost in terms of the logical coherence of their arguments, to undermine any possible case that might be advanced for Scottish Independence.

The real issues surrounding the price of oil relate to the need globally to transition to a de-carbonised post-capitalist circular economy that is not dependent on fossil fuels and does not degrade our shared environment. In this context we should be considering the rising sovereign debt among Gulf states rather than the impact of oil prices on the Scottish deficit.

Question 3: what impact will sovereign debt among Gulf states have on mid-term oil price projections and what are the implications for an orderly transition to the necessary new global economic framework?

This is the real question unionists should be asking themselves in relation to oil prices. Saudi Arabia is incurring a 9% deficit this year because of the low oil price it has partially caused through politically motivated over-production. It has to service this self-same debt through oil production. This sets up feedback that might lock the Gulf into a cycle of high production > low oil price > low revenues > high deficit > high production if it crosses a threshold where increases in production to service debt lower prices and therefore revenues available to do so critically.

Question 4: we - both advocates of Scottish Independence and unionists - should be asking: is this a bad thing?

Short term, perhaps, but over the longer term? It may be the case that it prices out fracking and incentivises de-carbonisation. There will be global economic pain as a result, but should we manage this as part of the global transition to circular economics rather than avoid it and cause worse pain later?