A guest post by Samuel Miller
It appears some folk aren’t happy with them essenpee and their completely unhealthy obsession with that whole silly independence thing. A subject pro Westminster elements of the political class and meeja keep bringing up near every day, but y’know, fair enough. It seems they’ve grown bored with the whole idea. Bored, bored, bored, bored, bored. All of them bored to tears apparently and they’re not considering that a particularly offensive, insensitive and insulting stance to take in any way, shape, or form at all. Oh no. That would be a needlessly divisive thing to do after all and they don’t like divisive things on principle.
That would mean that for all their demands that around half the population respect NO meaning NO, and their right to raise or drop the subject as they see fit? They wouldn’t respect the rights and principles of others when they said YES and meant it, or when they wish to discuss self determination at a time of their choosing. Presumably it would also mean these parties wouldn’t be up for the right of people to change their minds and voice their concerns and opinions publicly as circumstances change. Why that would be downright anti-democratic, and I’m sure such a thought would never occur.
Mind you… When those others, (who aren’t bored at all), do respond with challenge to some political type or meeja pundit raising the whole (say it softly) i********nce subject in the negative, they’re no happy with that challenge either. Some people would be forgiven for thinking it’s a bit of a damned if you do and damned if you don’t conundrum.
Spare a thought for the poor souls at the pointy end of supporting UK politics though readers. They’ve spent over four years creating a narrative and saturating the meeja with essenpee baddery, you know. Almost every day of that period, some policy gonk or commentator has attempted to hold to account (or would that be undermine?) the Scottish government and/or the very idea that full fat self determination for the population of Scotland might be a good thing. That’s a lot of effort and do they get any thanks for it? There’s no damn gratitude in the world today.
Anyroads. It seems a cornerstone of this narrative, (that being ‘no appetite/demand for a referendum’), took a bit of a dent on Saturday past… yet again. Aye, apparently there was a bit of a partaaaay in Embra where a few folks gathered to let those and such as those know that they have a somewhat different opinion on how things are working out. (Seein’ as how fair sized chunks of yer meeja and what constitutes the political class in the UK won’t represent them and all.) They turned up in their thousands to set the record straight on the whole ‘no demand for’ thing. They turned up to sing and laugh, to shout and cheer and to let the world know… their appetite for democracy is just fine. That they have a voice of their own thanks and they know how to use it.
Now, I can understand if those folk supportive of the Westminster system of government are a tad concerned at the moment. Not only have their heroes arguably failed to deliver on the pledges and assurances they gave Scotland’s population in 2014. The government du jour have dropped the UK’s international political standing into a cludgie and precipitated the current Brexit catastrophe with, apparently, hardly a thought given to the economic or constitutional fallout. Their actions have endangered the N.I. Good Friday Agreement, the standing devolution settlements and they are also currently taking the Scottish Parliament, (and by extension the chosen representation of the Scottish electorate), to court over the Continuity Bill/power grab stooshie. Describing the outlook as a bit on the bleak side both economically and societally for the populations of the UK on the back of this? Well, I’d say that’s an understatement of epic proportions. What can’t be denied is that all of the above events are concerning for everyone, whatever their political or constitutional affiliation.
Still, if the pro Westminster political class, their meeja chooms and their public support are so confident that there is no appetite for a change of management despite ALL of this? If they believe they’ve done a bang up job of delivering for and winning over, the electorate with their warm friendly message of unity? There is a simple way of finding out. How about, (just for a laugh), imagining that you actually do care about ALL of the population, democracy and so forth? (Yes, even those people who don’t actually, normally, vote for you) How about… asking them directly? Radical concept I know, but given there’s been the odd update in circumstances in the past four years or so? Might be an idea.
Any plebiscite will do really, though I’d guess most would prefer a referendum. Take, IF YOU CAN, party politics out of the equation and all that. All those in favour of Westminster government need do is vote no, if that is their continued preference. If enough of the electorate agree with that? Then you get a second shot at delivering that vision of the UK going forward. That’s thon democracy thing in action by the by.
Hmmm. Unless of course, they feel their management approach has not been all that successful? Surely not?
What cannot be denied, is that there are currently ongoing changes in constitutional and economic circumstances which fly in the face of pledges and assurances made to the population of Scotland in 2014. That much is a matter of public record and a great many people clearly feel it should require an appropriate and democratic response. Might also be the situation that those who made those pledges and assurances answer some pressing questions the population may have concerning the bill of goods they were sold. An understandable attitude given the situation they find themselves in today, you’d think.
For me? I’d say that democracy isn’t a one-off event. The right to choose, to change your mind in the face of mounting evidence and events, isn’t a serving suggestion. It is an inalienable human right. If the winner of a public ballot can’t, or won’t, deliver on the pledges and assurances they made? It might be considered polite of them to explain why this might be the case. It might also be considered appropriate if they accept that the people they made those commitments to and who voted for them in good faith, have the absolute right to choose again.
One more thing and it really shouldn’t need saying, but to even suggest denying people that right, or that principle? That’s not a good look.
Worth a thought.