CONFUSION over what independence will mean has done a disservice to Scottish voters. For America’s founding fathers, independence was a last resort, reluctantly taken, writes David Miles
|Scooped by Peter A Bell|
The transistor radio would have confused Jefferson. An observation just as true and no less irrelevant than the claim that he would have been confused by Scotland's independence movement. Jefferson at least would have had the excuse of being far removed in time from the realities of Scottish politics in the early 21st century. David Miles and others commenting from the British nationalist perspective have no such excuse for their gross misunderstanding - or misrepresentation - of the situation.
Note the characteristic confusion of double standards that clouds David Miles's thinking. He thinks it strange that voters in Scotland should vote in the referendum partly on the basis of what they consider will be the likely outcome of a future UK election, the result of which they cannot know for certain but can quite reasonably surmise from available polling evidence. But he sees nothing at all odd about supposing we might be influenced by what he imagines might be the views of a long-dead individual who could not possibly envisage the reality of politics in another land 200 years in the future - any more than he could envisage the digital watch.
This article is riddled with the fallacies which derive from intellectually stultifying notions of British exceptionalism - the idea that "British is best" at all times in all circumstances because... well... because it's British.
The comment about the "clear risks of separation" tells us all we need to know about David Miles's prejudices. Not only the stubborn refusal to use the word "independence" - in that he is only following instructions from the spin-quacks running Project Fear - but the ludicrously simplistic assumption that not being part of the British state must, in and of itself, do serious and possibly fatal damage to Scotland. It is part of British nationalist arrogance that Scotland is only lent legitimacy and feasibility as part of Greater England.
But the real idiocy here is in the idea that the shape and nature of a future independent Scotland is somehow being rigidly defined by a current Scottish Government which, regardless of its present popularity and the lack of any viable alternative, must be regarded as transitory in the larger scheme of things.
It seems that David Miles simply cannot get his head around the concept of Scotland's future being shaped by Scotland's people. Popular sovereignty truly is an alien concept to the ideological British nationalist.