Crossing The Great Divide? This post represents our first group effort, so please get involved and leave your thoughts in the comments. I intend this for the 100% Group only so no need to share. We have about a hundred members now, so thanks to everyone for joining, and I really hope we can get a good discussion going in this group. What difference we can make in the real world, I dont know, but many of us are active beyond FaceBook, and so if we can reach broad agreement on principles and frameworks, perhaps we can co-ordinate something bigger. But my reason for starting this group was that I was seeing a lot of negativity and entrenchment on the Yes side of the debate, where I was very active in the lead up to the vote. As our member Mike Cobley recently pointed out, some supporters of independence are not taking on board the significance of the referendum result. I dont wish to overplay the result, to overreact. If I can reach any balanced view on it I would begin by saying that the question was answered in the negative, and the statement Scotland should not be an independent country expresses the current will of the people after a long and stimulating debate. I think we have to deal with that as a reality, and accept that it represents what the majority genuinely believe. They have not been hoodwinked into that decision. They are not bad people for making that decision. There are no more idiots or drongos on their side than there are on ours. On both sides there are flag waving bigots who will never have the capacity to understand that the other side are equally entitled to their views, that no-one has the monopoly on the truth, that there are people on both sides acting in what they see as the best interests of the greater society. For some that greater society is the UK. I always saw Scottish independence as the beginning of a wider social movement that would spread to the whole UK. So close are the links between us I cannot imagine that a movement for self-determination would ever fizzle out at the border. I think recent events in Westminster and beyond show that my belief has a good foundation, and I see for almost the first time Westminster waking up to the idea that a better organised democracy may actually be the best way to progress. The purpose of this group is to build bridges and heal division in the hope of finding a consensus that can take us forward in the absence of the more radical and immediate reform supporters of independence hoped for. Of course, consensus does not mean total agreement. It is not a pogrom of enforced capitulation. You can have your view and be 100% confirmed in it at the same time as understanding that you may never achieve it. But if you can embrace the idea of progress, then every percentage point you gain towards your goal is a victory, and if we all progress a wee bit at a time, eventually we will arrive at a place where both the democratic majority and the surrounding minorities have at least some common ground to build the future upon. We operate by consensus every day. When we obey the traffic rules; pay our taxes; hold the door open for someone; respect a locked gate; maintain anothers personal space; hold our tongues to spare the feelings of a loved one - in all these tiny ways we consent to the mores and legitimacy of the group. We are shocked when we go abroad and see people run a red light or drive like maniacs. They have the same laws we do, but the difference is the consensus. Its illegal to litter in the UK, but many people do it without compunction. In Switzerland you would be a social pariah if you did it. Same laws (largely speaking), different consensus. When it comes to politics the party system creates division, deliberately so. Not because it benefits the people, but because it benefits those who make their living from the party system. So, there is a temptation to believe that all political debate is voiced in the tone the media projects - division, anger, opposition, recrimination. In fact, within government the machinery of day to day decision making and policy development is often consensual. It would be impossible to run the committee system if the Conservative and labour members of any particular committee were at one anothers throats over every detail. If you dont believe me go and watch Scottish parliamentary TV on the Scottish Governments web site. It makes for very dull viewing, but it shows how the individuals and parties do just get on with it, and do recognise that the party of government leads the consensus, but other views and opinions are accepted and acted upon. So, consensus is with us already, and we know how it works and what it feels like. We may fume at the stupid sequencing of the traffic lights, but we abide by them nevertheless. What I would like to do is extend the idea of consensus into a debate on a constitutional framework that allows us to progress together, regardless of what our journey has been so far. I believe the SNP intended to sponsor just such a move, based on their draft constitution, if we had voted Yes. But we do have a big structural problem to overcome as a group if we are to achieve any kind of meaningful progress, and this is where I would like your views and practical suggestions. As far as I know we only have one No voter in the group. I will not mention the name of the person, but if they wish to declare themselves that might be useful. I think we need to reach out and find people from the Better Together and No Thanks groups who might be willing to take part in the discussion here. Otherwise there really isnt much point having a group of this nature. I have not made any attempt so far to engage with those other groups, but does anyone here have experience of doing that? Can anyone think of how best to do it, or if there are any moderate (as opposed to fanatical) groups that might harbour the more open minded? Do you have reasonably minded No voting friends that might like to take part? If so, please invite them over. I have to admit a degree of nervousness about crossing the great divide. I have quite a thick skin when it comes to robust debate, and I can probably take anything they can throw at me. But still I would hate to find that there is no willingness on their part to have any discussion. My own thought was to find a few of the groups and make a post along the following lines. I am a Yes voter who accepts the democratic will of the sovereign people of Scotland that Scotland should not be an independent country. However, I still believe in greater autonomy for Scotland, and in my heart of hearts I have not given up on the idea of greater self-determination. I am part of a group that seeks to bring people from both sides of the debate together to discuss the way forward in a spirit of friendship and a shared ambition to see things made better for all the people of Scotland, but not to the detriment of those in the rest of the UK. If you share our concern that there is still a democratic deficit within the UK (and because of that within Scotland too) then Id like to invite you to join our group to take part in a broad based discussion about the way forward. I would anticipate a strong negative reaction from many Unionists and No voters, but do you think this might reach the people we would like to have in the group? Is this the kind of approach you’d be happy to have me make on behalf of us all, or would you like to try something else, perhaps a different wording? Open to all ideas here.
Posted on: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:57:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015