015
By Jason Michael

THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP, I suspect, between the deterioration of our adherence to the rules of language and the miserable place in which we find ourselves politically. Genuine mistakes and typos aside, the acceleration of the rates of technological advance and communications innovation have radically changed the way we write and speak. Thanks to text-speak, memetic phraseology, and a disturbing admixture of political jingoism, corporate jargon, cultural referencing, and good old-fashioned laziness the English language – once dismissed as a mere mercantile code – has become something worse. It has lost, in much of its common use, its grammatical precision.

Why does this matter and why do I think this has had an adverse effect on our society and our politics? We are rational beings. This is to say that the human mind is marked by its ability to think through real world problems and so arrive at real world solutions. Unlike most other animals, our brains have evolved the remarkable ability to interiorise that which is exterior – making us, through our ability to reflect and rationalise things, nature’s greatest problem solvers.

Yet, unlike any other animal – so far as we know, we think in language. Inside our mind our thoughts are communicated to us in words; the inner grammar of the human imagination. The more precise our language and its grammar, the more precise our thoughts. When our language is dumbed down so too is our capability to make sense of the thoughts we are thinking; we lose articulation and thus find it increasingly difficult to make sense of more complex realities. Someone who is unable to use their words, who lacks the language to describe the world around them, becomes alienated from that world. Its realities become strange and confusing to them.

One consequence of this alienation is the delegation of reason, rather than own our own thoughts and take responsibility for puzzling things through we subscribe to thought-collectives – the logical next step for a groupthink culture. We see this in action in the package bundle currently calling itself progressivism. To be “progressive,” in modern political tribalism, means to be signed up to a set of values the individual progressive can receive on trust.

There may indeed be good and rationally valid reasons for the legalisation of same sex marriage and abortion for example, but there is nothing inherently similar about these issues. One is a question of fundamental human rights and the other concerns the question of ending life. The progressive approach, however, is to adopt them as a package whereupon their categorical differences are confused; everything becomes “a right.” Much the same is happening in our political tribes.

Both the struggle for Scottish independence and the campaign for a People’s Vote are responses to the British status quo. They are both popular forms of mass political agitation aligned against the current British political establishment, but with some in the independence movement now making common cause with the English People’s Vote campaign it is clear people are failing to see the distinction – the real differences – between these two very different things. Tanja Bueltmann’s recent vociferous defence, as an independence supporter, of the need to fight for a people’s vote on the shape of the final Brexit deal reveals her confusion. She is protesting against the British state for the sake of protesting against the British state – and this is bad thinking.

Independence for Scotland is about independence, our complete separation from English politics and the entanglements that that creates. National autonomy does not merely mean that we will have complete control over our own affairs, it demands that we remove ourselves from the affairs of other nations – especially from those we wish to divorce. In confusing the struggle for independence with a cause which is essentially English we do nothing but further entangle ourselves in its politics – the politics of union – and thereby weaken the logical underpinnings of the case for independence.

Independence and the People’s Vote campaign, while both aligned against the present London government, are also in profound political opposition. Independentistas looking for a People’s Vote in order to mitigate a Brexit deal made by the British government are lending support to the union by ignoring the fact that Scotland has already rejected Brexit. The people of Scotland went to the polls on the day of the EU referendum and voted to remain in the European Union. This is the settled will of Scotland. Therefore, when independence supporters campaign for a say in the final Brexit deal they are giving permission to the British government to continue to ignore Scotland.

Regardless of this, a campaign for the benefit of English political ambitions – ignoring the will of Scotland – has again come to Scotland with the same tired old line: The people of Scotland have to chip in to help their neighbours in England. It’s a lie and it has always been a lie. But clearly there are some in Scotland who are incapable of seeing the harm this progressive alliance will do to our own country. As Scotland has always been ignored, so too will the English Remainers. There will be no “People’s Vote,” and thanks to the priorities of the English state always taking priority over and above those of Scotland Scots MPs are powerless to affect any meaningful change for Scotland – never mind our pathetic and helpless English Remainer allies.

The campaign for Scottish independence is a struggle against the domination of our country, but not by the Tories alone, but by the English unionist political body in toto. These People’s Vote campaigners are wolves in sheep’s clothing; they are a faction of that unionist political body come to Scotland to seek support their own benefit and not ours. Supporting them means that we logically acknowledge the superiority of their needs to our own. Doing this undermines the independence we must now assert before we can achieve full political independence. What we need to do is get our thinking straight on this and put it into language they can understand.

003


Patrick Stewart on Brexit deal vote campaign


032 001
021019

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Because We Love the UK?

  1. Jason, you make a cogent case and I agree. An abstention on any new Brexit vote would leave Westminster where it is with the will of the remaining countries in the UK. However, a better option would be for the Scottish Government to refuse permission for that vote in Scotland. I don’t know whether that would be possible or be legal. If the Scottish Parliament has devolved powers the holding of referenda should be implicit.

    Like

  2. Exactly correct-it has nothing to do with us now.ruk voted ,Scotland was told to ‘suck it up’ -we move on and leave them to the mess of their own making knowing full well we did try to help them by voting remain.to now tell us to do it again to get them what they now want is a no-no

    Like

  3. Tanja Bultmann tweeted that independence supporters not supporting a People’s Vote was causing her to no longer support independence, so I would say portraying her as a true independence supporter is questionable. It would seem to have been more a position of convenience rather than true support. Keep in mind that she now works and lives in England at an English run university where support for independence might cause problems for her and is working with an organisation run by Unionists.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Would you mind showing that tweet?
      At no point did Tanja tweet she wasn’t supporting independence anymore. So your reasoning about her working at an English university etc are poor assumptions.
      She gave examples of 9 people she had convinced to vote for independence who have changed their minds since seeing the attacks on Twitter she had gotten since Sat.

      Like

  4. Bueltmann always operates from the same playbook: a) Demands others agree with her on whatever it is she’s decided to platform on, b) Any opposition, she subtweets, and encourages her followers to pile-on, c) Then resorts to endless streams of whining and victim-playing, including lying about “receiving rape and death threats”, d) Followed by a lot of hand-wringing and flouncing off twitter only to return a few hours later.
    She’s well-known on Twitter for all this. Don’t get sucked into her vortex of crazy. One of the most extreme #FBPE nuts. And no, she doesn’t care about Independence any more than she considers Scotland some kind of theme park for her neo-liberal drivel.

    Like

Please Share Your Thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s