Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Respecting democracy and abolishing democracy are not the same thing

Last night I got into one of my occasional spats on Twitter, and this time it involved someone who a lot of you will be familiar with - Jill Stephenson, an Edinburgh University academic who absolutely bloody loathes Yes voters. In fact, I once saw her denouncing the entire male gender on the basis that we were collectively "to blame" for the independence referendum happening in the first place. Anyway, I innocently asked her how she manages to teach people who she hates, and after avoiding the question for quite a while, she eventually came out with these gems -

"How do you know whether I teach yes voters? I'm not aware of having done so."

"On the whole, I don't meet yes voters"

Hmmm. Given that 45% of the electorate voted Yes, and that (whisper it gently) some of those people are highly likely to be current or former students at Edinburgh University, it does seem somewhat improbable that Jill has managed to avoid us completely. But you never know, I suppose - perhaps she carries around an amulet which wards us off?

While I was having the exchange, a number of her chums piled in on me, and one of them suggested that the following image sums me up quite well -


Which, of course, is spectacularly misjudged, because I've only ever made one of those statements, and I've specifically repudiated every single one of the other nine.  But the odd one out is interesting, because it actually has no place on the list.  "We demand another referendum" has got nothing to do with conspiracy theories, or refusing to respect the democratic process - quite the contrary.  It's about saying that the winners of a vote can't just abolish democracy now that they've got the result they want.  Would the person who compiled the above image defend David Cameron if he said : "I won in 2010, so that's it - you're never getting another vote.  You're stuck with me as Prime Minister for the rest of your lives."

Unfortunately, we've seen this kind of thing from people on both sides of the debate.  In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, a number of Yes supporters were extremely impatient with anyone who even dared to mention the possibility of another referendum - for example, Lallands Peat Worrier bluntly said "stop it".  That was well-meaning, because he honestly felt that shutting down talk of another referendum would be helpful for the independence cause, but in my view it was totally misguided.  It simply played into the hands of anti-democrats such as the person who compiled the above image, who were all too keen to establish the Orwellian narrative that respecting democracy somehow entails the ruling out of future democratic votes.

Derek Bateman has returned to this theme over the last couple of days.  He's repeated something that he said immediately after the referendum : "I will go to my grave believing in independence and I will also go to my grave as a democrat." This presumably implies that there won't be - and shouldn't be - another independence referendum within his lifetime. That's really odd, because I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that he's only in his mid-60s, which means that even if we end up sticking to the "once in a generation" principle, there's no reason why he won't be around to see a second referendum. In Quebec's case, of course, the second independence referendum came after fifteen years, and the second Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums came after eighteen years. Is Derek really implying that in order to be good democrats, we have to rule out a referendum for LONGER than a generation, unless there is a "material change of circumstances"? If so, that argument is utterly unsustainable.

But what I think really needs to be knocked on the head is Derek's suggestion that people who talk about a second referendum are somehow analogous to the "dark forces" who might have sought to overturn a Yes vote using legal challenges. That's totally wrong. Only the out-and-out conspiracy theorists are trying to overturn a No vote - the rest of us who are looking forward to another referendum at some point in the future have accepted the result. The correct comparison for us would be with people in a post-independence Scotland who might seek to use the electoral process to gain a mandate for Scotland rejoining the United Kingdom. Would anyone seriously suggest that such people can't be considered democrats?

Derek has also reiterated that he doesn't think the flawed nature of the referendum campaign should in any way detract from our moral requirement to not just accept the result, but to celebrate it as an expression of democracy. I must say I think that's pushing it a bit. Yes, we have to accept the result, because this is the real world and you can't just immediately re-run a vote on the grounds that, for example, public service broadcasters actively participated in a "shock and awe" campaign directed by the British state. But accepting the result doesn't mean that you have to wax lyrical about the majesty of democracy when you've just come out of a campaign that may have been free, but most certainly wasn't fair.

21 comments:

  1. "But accepting the result doesn't mean that you have to wax lyrical about the majesty of democracy when you've just come out of a campaign that may have been free, but most certainly wasn't fair."

    Lovely quote James.

    Although you may be being a little harsh on Derek; the idea that in 10 years there will not be any 'material changes' large enough to justify a new vote is very very low, and he knows this. I would also posit a large upturn in support for independence being one of such 'material changes'.

    It is a much better *line of argument* to be made to people who voted NO than what seems to be happening now which seems to be people saying we should have one as soon as a length of time that 'seems' long enough has passed, which is kinds the idea being given off by a lot of 'Yessers'.

    This wouldn't mean we should stop persuading people or talking about it, but to frame the debate differently, and it is much easier to argue 'these major things have changed since the last vote' as a justification for a second indyref.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I once saw her denouncing the entire male gender on the basis that we were collectively "to blame" for the independence referendum happening in the first place."

    Utterly bizarre considering it was the most incredible grass roots engagement of the scottish public with a staggering turnout that brought in those who had been previously disenfranchised and disillusioned with politics as usual. Perhaps all those working class and poor people are the 'wrong sort' of voter for an academic like her? She must have been furious watching Nicola in Holyrood today as that seems just a touch contrary to her potty 'male gender' narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Despite Jill Stephenson being an educator, a professor, I have never been able to regard her opinion as genuine since uncovering the links from her to Hothershall to Alistair Darling's wife and him personally on 'issues' such as the visual trolling of Alex Salmond personally. A direct line from the head of the campaign to online trolling via the people mentioned. Further, she was linked to the infamous 'Max Nix' and others who were linked via her employment and abused their positions, for example at a graduation ceremony, to 'troll' the YES campaign. Given this and the quality of her debate I don't think them to be worthy of a response. I have tangled with her before and found that despite her title as a professor she has little to add to the debate, rather like a football fan shouting abuse from the sidelines she doesn't know how to play the game but simply enjoys shouting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Jill Stephenson one is interesting, because one of the first things historians are supposed to learn is 'don't generalise' which was something she was awfully guilty of doing with regard to Yes voters. I wonder, also, if she was an early modern or even medieval historian rather than a modern one, she might be less keen on the status quo. Or do historians pick the type of history that suits their world-view?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You only have to look at David Starkey to realise that the historical period of specialism has no bearing on political position.

      Delete
    2. Fair point, Fraser, though he is very 'into' England and its monarchy, and the whole idea of empire which was in his origins in the period he studies.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Derek Bateman is becoming a prat unfortuantely. He's busily lauding a strong Labour opposition and we NEED a powerful Labour party and now this - DB is not playig on the same team anymore by the looks of it. Maybe he thinks he can be rehabilitated into the BBC. In short, Derek is behaving like a BritNat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I can't see those sentiments in Derek's recent posts. In his last piece on Brian Wilson and Labour he likens the party to a cadaver. Where was he talking up the Labour Party? Genuinely interested, not trying to be argumentative here.

      Delete
    2. I enjoy Derek's writing but he seems to equate those anticipating a rerun along with those undemocratic people persuing UDI. (I suspected that they were agent provocateurs, and they seem to have lost interest)

      Delete
  7. It is Edinburgh University, though, so she might be right.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dunno about anyone else, but I'll keep voting for parties which have 'Hold / support referendum on Scottish referendum' as a manifesto commitment. But then maybe I've got the whole democracy thing wrong?

    Ah, ok, wait a minute. I know what's going on. I don't understand British democracy. It's not like regular, common or garden representative democracy, it's an elective dictatorship; the minority dictate to the majority. The minority being politicians of course. Even says so on wiki.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Keaton

    Hey, I did my masters at Edinburgh, so there's been at least one Yesser graduate. Two if you include my mum.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Her subject is 'modern German history'.

    Wow, expert on Scotland then. Bet you the Germans think she's an expert on them too.

    Anyway, she's well into Nazism. Particular interest in female Nazis. Clearly fascinated by the subject.

    http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/history-classics-archaeology/about-us/staff-profiles?uun=ajrs&search=&params=&cw_xml=profile_tab5_academic.php

    ReplyDelete
  11. James, for what it's worth I think you're misrepresenting Derek Bateman's sentiment when he says he'll go to the grave believing in independence. Having read the piece I don't think it implies at all that he doesn't expect another referendum in his lifetime, he's merely saying that he will not change his beliefs in the rightness of independence and democracy as principles. You can still believe in independence in an independent country.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 30 SNP Mp's elected in 2015 and declare independence. That's been the agreed position by every one of the unionist quisling traitor racist britnat parties for my entire life. Tavish the prat declared before the 2011 election that there was no need for a referendum. If you want independence elect an SNP majority. UDI is a real option. As is all out civil war. But that will be the final option when every democratic choice has been obliterated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you get lost trying to contact SNG, because your post is utterly barmy and bat shit crazy from start to finish? Are you even a independence supporter?

      Delete
  13. The wording on the image is very good, a thorough knowledge of semantics and the basis of propoganda. None of it is a lie, it's all based on some truth. And as you say James, then they sneak into the second question of the second part, the point they're trying to make about another referendum, with the built-in implication that only one of the previously defined "whackos" would reand another referendum.

    The use of it on you is a waste, and you clearly managed to provoke then into wasting a good rhetoric, a good leaflet, wrong target, wrong time.

    There is a psychological mistake, but I'm not going to point that out to the enemy!

    I think LPW is perhaps still a bit demoralised, and looking on the gloomy side. I think Bateman who I didn't read during the ref but heard about, is just full of himself and his new-found "fame". But thank God for you and the Rev :-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. "But thank God for you and the Rev :-)"

    Seconded.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It was once the settled will of Great Britain that women should not be allowed to vote. In 1865 the all male tory govt of the day unanimously voted against women, any women, having a vote. 'Votes For Women' was a grass roots campaign, uniting women from all classes. eg in a Lady Lytton was imprisoned but immediately released by the police once she gave them her name (!) On her next political outing, she disguised herself as a seamstress and gave police a false name on arrest. She then suffered the same inhumane fate as her sisters and was force fed, when she went on hunger strike. In 1918 women over 30 who owned certain larger properties (so upper class/ wealthy) won the right to vote but it took another 10 years for all women over 21 to win the right to vote, the same as men. In other countries women's suffrage has taken far longer e.g. In ultra conservative Switzerland, women only gained the vote in 1962! The MSM of its day concentrated on the Emily Pankhursts of the movement, being from the same educated elite classes as the MSM then. But, just like the YES movement, the Women's Movement united rich & poor, old and young. The Women's Movement did not give up and die as they were told to in 1865! The Scottish Independence Movement is also not going to 'cooriedoon & dee' and that is democracy!

    ReplyDelete
  16. '"But thank God for you and the Rev :-)"

    Seconded.'

    Thirded. I enjoy Bateman's blog but mostly for his passion rather than his objectivity. We need sites like Wings, ScotGoesPop and LPW (usually) for their substantive content. Too many of the others are just commentary.

    ReplyDelete