There are various proper responses to this. In the first place, it is a deeply, deeply undemocratic position to take. To champion democracy is to accept that in any society there exist different opinions, conflicting opinions, and that this fact is not just to be tolerated but positively welcomed. Or are we to aspire to the unanimity of a cult? In the second place, it is a deeply, deeply conservative position. If we disallow debate, or render it illegitimate or even just disreputable, then we completely disarm those who might make any challenge to the status quo. Is the status quo, whatever it is, to be put beyond any challenge and are those who might dare challenge it to be castigated and othered for creating unnecessary "division"? In the third place, it is emblematic of the delusionary group-think that characterises so much of what Better Together says and does. The referendum debate has most emphatically not created "division". There always has been a "division" between those who do, and do not, want Scotland to be an independent country. Supporters of the union may deny that. They may, I suppose, genuinely not have noticed it. That doesn't change the fact. Those wanting independence have managed to live for decades (arguably, centuries) with a management of that division that comes down in favour of their opponents. What has changed is simply that, to its disbelieving fury, the class that thinks it has done very well out of the union is at long last being forced to justify its continuance, to argue its case, and it is slowly dawning on it that it might not be as easy as it thought to persuade the rest of us to go along with it. In the fourth place, those who claim that the conduct of the debate has somehow divided the country in a way that brings shame on it, or the disrespect of a worldwide audience, are simply and demonstrably wrong. The debate taking place in Scotland is universally peaceful and astonishingly well-informed, cordial and erudite by any international or historical comparison and the fact that someone is rude to someone else on Twitter changes that fact not one jot. Anyone who genuinely thinks it does just doesn't know Twitter nor appreciate how both the tone and content of any debate is distorted if it has to take place by means of exchanging 140 character bursts.
And that point shades into this last one. Most irritatingly for those on my side of the fence, insofar as the campaign does become rancorous or off-puttingly aggressive, who do you think benefits? Who would benefit if this idea takes hold, if we all come to believe that those who insist on having the debate are obsessives who don't care about the unnecessary bitter division they are creating? Which side in fact identified, long ago and (at semi-official level at least) explicitly, that if the tone of the debate can be lowered, or just thought to be low, then so much the better? See the picture above for the answer to that question. The sonorous warnings about "division" are in fact an unspeakably cynical attempt to close down the debate itself, simply because it's feared that it might be lost. The hope is, in essence, to prevail not by winning a debate but by making it too embarrassing for your opponents to turn up and take part.
Well. It won't work. I am sure that I am not alone in having watched and listened to friends, colleagues, acquaintances, over the last two or three months in particular, start to engage in the debate not in sorrow or with angry reluctance but with enthusiasm, interest and a real appreciation of what a privilege we are being given and what an obligation there is on us to think about things properly and get the answer right. No-one I know is embarrassed or annoyed at finding himself or herself part of the generations that get to carry that task out. On the contrary. Quite, quite on the contrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment