Same for YES and NO. I hear some regard the result after the18th represented the settled will of the Scottish people. 'Will', I can accept but 'settled' is a vexed question. If for no other reason than the point above.
I know, we've had a referendum not an election. Plenty were happy to point that out or fudge it as required. Still, I saw nothing in black and white, to say the question should never be asked again, that it was settled, as some say, for a generation. It was a referendum, granted, seeking an answer to a point of principle not to elect representatives. There's no reason for the question of principle to have a time of deferment attached to it.
We don't say to a political party not elected, give up and go home, never again darken our doors with your discredited ideas. However much we might wish it, their principles, policies and objectives are their own and they have the right to express them in the political process.
Scotland's settled will, then. 55% to 45%. Pretty near a 50:50 split. About 10% difference between two visions of the future. We need to tease out what those visions were. Lord Ashcrofts poll, strangely enough, analysed why YES and why NO and the reasons differed on the issues most compelling to each. YES put the social justice-fairer society high on the list along with our future in our own hands. NO were unconvinced on currency, unwilling to risk independence, generally in favour of the union.
For me, as aYES, it was clear. I found NO entirely lacking in vision and with no positives for the Union. Even at the last, the Brown package held no detail though, if it had, it could have been the vision so long awaited. I wondered why so late. Now, I still wonder at the timetable, on which so many may have voted NO, as it has nothing inspiring in it and certainly no detail.
So, indeed, the people of Scotland have spoken. I respect the decision but I still fundamentally disagree with it. 1.6 million did with their votes and, I suspect some have already crossed over in the days of fudge in Westminster that followed. This is a matter of principle and a matter of facts, for me. Principle, in that I believe in what YES felt Scotland could be in its own right. That embraces ideas of fairness, justice and an open, internationalist place in the world. It was as much about self-determination as our example to the world: passionate, peaceful argument through a democratic process as an example to troubled planet, including a new flavour of politics, a spirit of co-operation and not conflict.
I feel Westminster have already said all they will about the achievement, having wiped their brows and returned to the run of politics they know. The UK should be proud. We had this debate without guns and coercion of that kind. We did have misinformation, a hostile media and a coalition of parties who gave us nothing until the last minute, who could not or would not make a coherent positive case for the Union based on their own principles. That was shameful.
In the last analysis, I have to say, I will not set aside my own principles. I won't give up on social justice or a different kind of political discourse. I won't tell the YES movement to stand down.
I will use the UK political arena to make these principles a reality. I'll stand firm with my UK counterparts on that goal, just as I would have as a good-neighbourly independent Scot. Solidarity, after all, cross all borders, as any socialist will tell you.
I will continue to expose lies, duplicity and unalloyed spin for the sham it is. I'll call out any politician who tries to varnish the truth for their own advancement. I will honour all shades of opinion expressed by honest people according to their hearts and minds.
If the opportunity to ask any question again arises, I'll ask it. If the chance to ask YES or NO to independence comes again, I'll seize it with both hands.
The people are always speaking.
No comments:
Post a Comment