Let's give up on gentle persuasion approach for Scottish independence

The intention was to compare and contrast two items from The National. On the one hand, there was the latest woeful waffling from First Minister John Swinney. And on the other was a letter to Swinney from Yes Dunbar. The latter piece was headlined: “Yes group urges John Swinney to ‘prioritise path to independence’”. I took this to mean that they had written to Swinney urging him to actually prioritise an actual path to actual independence. An assumption which, regrettably, was incorrect.

The headline on the report of Yes Dunbar’s letter is very misleading. The phrase “path to independence” implies – to my mind, at least – an identified process with the restoration of independence as its end-point. But what Yes Dunbar is urging is nothing more than that Swinney dial down the gentle a bit on his preferred strategy of gentle persuasion – for him to be a bit more forceful in arguing that Scotland is fully capable of prospering as a nation.

I thought that Scotland’s capability in this regard was the default assumption among independence supporters. We would hardly be supportive of restoring Scotland’s independence if we imagined it would bring down even half of the ghastly consequences promised by Better Together. The question is not whether Scotland can survive and prosper as an independent nation, but whether we can without independence.

It may be argued that voters need to be reassured that Scotland is no less equipped to be an independent nation than any other independent nation, and considerably better equipped than most. I don’t disagree. But the fact that support for Yes has been becalmed around the 50% mark for a decade suggests to me that the strategy of gentle persuasion has had all the success it is capable of having. The question then is why persist with a campaign strategy that stopped having any positive effect perhaps as long ago as 2014?

And here we hit a problem. Because independence is not a prize that will be awarded to us when we have jumped through every conceivable hoop and ticked every imaginable box and answered every possible question, as the number of hoops, boxes and questions are without limit – that prize is unwinnable. So. what’s the point in all that hoop-jumping, box-ticking and question-answering?

The gentle persuasion approach isn’t just ineffective and potentially unending, it is actually counter-productive as participating in the hoop-jumping creates the impression that qualification is necessary; it actually encourages a mindset geared towards plodding – or marching – failure. We must be rid of that mindset. We need to think of independence as something that is ours by right and is being illegitimately withheld from us by the British state.

READ MORE: You heard the First Minister – let’s unite for independence!

Swinney’s article, on the other hand, is titled most appropriately. He seeks to portray those who question or criticise the gentle persuasion approach as recklessly impatient and favouring facile “solutions”. In reality, the impatience is no more than the sense of urgency Scotland’s cause demands and the questions and criticisms are mostly constructive and considered – no recklessness in sight.

By the same token, “solutions” that have been mulled over for many years are unlikely to deserve being called facile. Besides which, if these “solutions” were as slapdash and impractical as Swinney implies, surely someone in the SNP would be able to contrive a counter-argument. We have never had any counter-argument from the SNP. Criticism of the party’s approach to the constitutional issue elicits only demands that we desist from criticising.

As to the questions that are put to the SNP by the pro-independence part of the Yes movement, doesn’t it strike you as strange that the SNP make such frantic efforts to answer every daft question put by Unionists but flatly refuse to engage with those inside the Yes movement who seek information or explanation?

Swinney purposefully and dishonestly misrepresents critics of his party’s strategy for independence in the hope of rationalising his inability to respond meaningfully to the criticism. It is only when critics are ignored that they tend to become more strident. The SNP have been ignoring critics for at least a decade. It’s not so surprising if we’re now getting a bit shouty. Further, in reading the column multiple times, I can assure John Swinney that he does not share my sense of urgency.

Nothing of what he says speaks of impatience at all. Rather, it is all about being so hyper-cautious as to make no discernible progress whatever. His only idea – after 17 f***ing years in government – is to persist in plodding on with the same approach. Is it any wonder that many in the independence movement now look at the SNP leadership insisting on a “strategy” with an unblemished record of failure and conclude that failure is the SNP leadership’s preference? From the outside, it certainly looks like the party are perfectly content with things as they are and seek to maintain the status quo.

So long as the SNP can convince the pro-independence half of the population that they are working to restore independence, they are all but guaranteed that massive chunk of the vote – even if their only success is making the movement go backwards. If Swinney reckons “the people of Scotland want to hear substance from us, not just process”, why doesn’t he offer something substantial? There is no substance to anything that he has said or written on the issue since becoming party leader. Well, the answer is clearly because the substance is the process that he dismisses as if it was a mere triviality compared to the glittering generalities of his rhetoric. It is all very well to talk about how beneficial and even essential something is, but if you can’t also show it is doable then it is all just talk.

Swinney declines to discuss the process by which Scotland’s independence will be restored either because he is totally ignorant on the subject or because he is aware of the process but he’s also shit-scared of it because it involves seriously confronting the British state. Whatever the reason, the fact that Swinney refuses to even talk about process is incontrovertible proof that he has not the slightest intention of implementing any process.

Swinney says he “can’t ignore the decision of the UK Supreme Court” because the SNP “believe in the rule of law”. Very worthy, John! Virtue duly signalled! But here’s a question, whose law? You say you can’t ignore what I shall call British law. But you effortlessly disregard Scotland’s law and constitution. Why is that?

He says there are “no shortcuts”. But nobody has claimed there are. It’s not a shortcut we’re looking for but a route.

Finally, John Swinney says we must not accept “Westminster’s undemocratic blocking of the right of people to choose their own future”. But that is precisely what he is accepting! By requesting a Section 30 order, he is affirming the very thing he says we must deny!

This is a politician choosing words for the way they sound rather than for what they mean. However bold it may seem, the stuff about rejecting the British veto on the exercise of our inalienable right of self-determination is exposed as the most vacuous of empty political rhetoric when placed alongside the intention to compromise the sovereignty of Scotland’s people by grovelling before parliamentary sovereignty. With every word he writes, Swinney confirms the view that his time as leader will spell disaster for Scotland’s cause. The big question is, can he be stopped?
Peter A Bell
Perth