17 November 2015

Critical friends

Whenever media commentators talk about SNP supporters or politicians being uncritical drones, I always assume they either have few Nationalist friends, or spend too much time on Twitter. In July, Iain Martin argued the party was turning into a "sinister personality cult". Today, Stephen Daisley writes that "the nationalist movement desperately needs critical thinking right now. The SNP megachurch brooks no heresy. MPs and MSPs genuflect to the leadership on all questions of doctrine." 

Now, I like critical thinking. A confident Scottish Government should welcome it. The best laid plans of mice, men, and governments - gang aft agley. Good intentions generate perverse consequences. Political discourse in Scotland remains oddly zero sum, reluctant to grapple with the fact that to privilege some values, others must be sacrificed. All of this needs to be exposed. All of this needs to be examined with more confidence, and less gormless snark. As one of life's natural heretics, and as an SNP supporter, I wish Scottish life had a more confident, more carefree public sphere in which ideas could be batted back and forth with gayer abandon. 

I wish our politicians - and yes, our academics too - were a bit less frit about putting their heads above the parapet. I wish more of them would brave the - very modest - storms and floods of daring to have an opinion in public. But the same press that frets about the Nationalist cyberlegion consistently pathologises political dissent. I can entirely understand the journalistic incentives behind this. Splits, divides and rebellions make for much more dramatic copy -- but the political media does a remarkable amount to foster and perpetuate the anxious, spinning, on-message culture some of its outriders purport to despise. So much, so banal. 

But sometimes I wonder if the indiscreet, blood-drenched tribalism of the Scottish Labour Party has spoilt our journalists and broadcasters. In the absence of self-destructive leaks, or internecine, anonymous intra-party briefings, it's assumed that Nationalists are uncritical moonies; that we've drunk the Kool Aid and have lost our wits. I'm yet to meet the SNP supporter with a brain who doesn't have parts of the party's platform and record they have their doubts about. Such is the fate of participating in a mass-membership party. Compromises are stuck. You won't approve of everything which finds its way into the policy platform. Unprecedented scenes, etc, etc.

Take your pick. Justice, health, education, Nato, international military interventions, Europe - I'm yet to meet the SNP sympathiser with their wits about them who doesn't harbour independent views on the SNP's government's record, and some question-marks and black-marks against it. Some of the most interesting and dramatic party barneys have never been reported. Can you find uncritical, unreflective diehards? Of course you can. But Stephen Daisley is conflating the absence of critical views with the absence of any inclination to share them with the Daily Record. "The war of all against all" may be a cherished tradition in Labour Party management, and a boon to the harried hack with a deadline to file, but it has little to recommend it. 

These themes are back in the media today, after former Salmond SPAD Alex Bell published a fiercely critical piece on the economic arguments for independence on his new platform, The Rattle. The economic basis of the article has been criticised. But bracketing these questions, my own objection to Alex's piece is more basic. Where is the emotional intelligence? The overt purpose of the piece is to call on SNP sympathisers to look critically at the government's strategy, both in terms of devolved policy, and to reflect on the sometimes harsh lessons of 2014, to re-examine the arguments uncritically and unsentimentally, unencumbered by attachment to the failures of the past, courageously and without illusions. Grand. A fine ambition. I agree. 

But you will never persuade anyone of anything by opening with the gambit, "you are an idiot and all your cherished viewpoints are self-evidently false." Nobody ever even earned a hearing with such a gambit. Hard truths must be communicated softly. Persuasion is almost always better achieved by seduction rather than conquest. Given the purpose of this intervention - and I don't doubt Alex's intentions are good and constructive in this respect - it is remarkable that he chose to pitch his criticisms in this way. His rhetoric alone green-lights SNP sympathisers simply to ignore its points, fair and unfair, compelling and misplaced though they may be. Which is, presumably, exactly the opposite of what was intended.

The "cocaine of the politically active, fun to join in but dulling the senses, jabbering on at a hundred words per minute while disconnected from self awareness"? Consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or quite by accident, alienating condescension leaks from every clause. Alex writes as if Daisleyvision was true, as if he is addressing biddable numpties without a skeptical spark in their heads. This is persuasion with a flamethrower. And it is disastrously ineffective. 

Invective is fun. Invective can be gratifying. But from someone trying to persuade other people, from someone trying to open minds to challenging questions rather than slamming them tight shut? It is disastrous, just disastrous. The unempathetic way in which Alex has couched his case ensures it cannot now receive a fair hearing or fair scrutiny. He has given anybody reluctant to address the issues he has raised every excuse to shrug off his argument uncritically. The article's lack of emotional intelligence blunts, rather than sharpens, his challenging case.  If this is persuasion, and an honest attempt to coax folk into a more self-critical stance, it has all the subtlety of a mashie niblick between the eyeballs. Which is a shame, as both Alex and Stephen are right to this extent: the SNP really does need its critical friends. 

41 comments :

  1. You don't doubt his good intentions. Many others do. He parted on very bad terms with the SNP and has shown many signs of bearing a grudge which it looks very like he intends to use that 'Rattle' to expound. Frankly, his economic arguments were absurd. (No nation is viable with a deficit? Has every nation on earth disappeared and no one told me?)

    You are a nice person to assume his good intent. Personally, I'm much more a skeptic than nice and he's given good reason for skepticism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on - giving Bell the benefit of the doubt as to good intentions is naïve and fatally undermines LPW's article.

      Delete
    2. LPW is many things. Naive is not one of them.

      Delete
    3. Bell's good intent is less important than his truthfulness and accuracy. Most Scots would agree with him. What he said is true and accurate.

      Delete
    4. I agree, Rab, that naïve is the wrong word. But he is, I think, underestimating Bell's ire, perhaps even hatred.

      Delete
    5. Alex Gallagher suggests that most Scots would agree with him. Where is his evidence for this? The fact that Alex is a member of Scottish Labour appears to be evidence enough.

      Delete
  2. Its difficult to take Alex Bell's credibility seriously when you realise that his criticisms demonstrate a complete ignorance of economics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "demonstrate a complete ignorance of economics"

      Exactly, he was one of the early authors of the "White Paper"

      Delete
    2. The entire White Paper was not about economics andhe was certainly not the author of the entire paper. There were economists involved in that part.

      Delete
  3. For me the interesting thing about this blog is that the "intellectual" LPW suddenly turns into the average Nat, denying the facts, logic and evidence.

    A respected Nat, an insider, a trusted adviser to the leadership, author of the central document in support of the Yes campaign, reveals the lies and misinformation at the heart of that campaign. But rather than accept the facts, our Nat "Brains" denies the evidence of his own eyes.

    Proof if it was needed that facts and evidence and logic are anathema to, not only your average Nat, but the elite and intelligent Nat.

    It appears that having a brain is no defence against swallowing lies so long as they are the lies you prefer to swallow.

    Not a new lesson, but one worth remembering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really lack self awareness.

      Delete
    2. Bell has not been an 'insider, trusted adviser' for a very long time and wrote parts, hard to know how much but probably not much, of that 'document', certainly not the economic arguments. His economic arguments in his article are simply laughable.

      Proof that facts and evidence are on a bypass in your brain.

      Delete
  4. "But Stephen Daisley is conflating the absence of critical views with the absence of any inclination to share them with the Daily Record."

    I wonder how much of that is due to media uniformity on Independence which- with two exceptions- is unionist? It is not coincidence that Johann Lamont choose the Daily Record to criticise the Labour leadership when she resigned. Given the paper's pro-Labour sympathies she was assured a friendly reception. Politicians and party members generally wont share juicy tidbits with journalists from hostile newspapers. This is nothing new.

    (the major exception being Liz Kendall supporters for the all the good it did her.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. You may have "yet to meet the SNP sympathiser with their wits about them who doesn't harbour independent views on the SNP's government's record" Leaving out the important conditional "with their wits about them", harbouring doubts and expressing doubts are two different things.

    Which is Bell's central thesis, is it not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are an idiot and an obvious Labour troll. What are you doing here where a good intellect is required to keep up. LPW IS naive in believing Bell has any good intentions towards the SNP.

      Delete
    2. I believe your above comment contradicts this one directly, or at least assumes different premises to attack the same target. I'm happy to talk constructively with unionists (if it helps, I've never been in the SNP and only voted for it once in a council election) but it's hard to know what you actually believe.

      So: are there no SNP members "with their wits about them", or are even the intelligent ones uncritical? Phrased otherwise: are they stupid or malicious?

      Further, I think the difference between Bell's writing and a fair criticism of the SNP (which you will see on this blog and at pubs and coffee shops across the country) is that Bell's writing, from what I have seen, is written in the confrontational and vindictive style of mainstream politics. It is combative and unhelpful in the capacity of a "critical friend", though useful as in his role as a critic (full stop). This is a direct result of the writer's background in the political class and it would well behove us to hope for better.

      None of this is controversial, and it's contained in the last few paragraphs of the blog on which we're commenting. I'm just curious what it is that you're hoping for?

      Delete
  6. In the comments on Alex Bell’s article this one was quite funny: “Excellent article, and it is disappointing to see some comments refusing to accept facts and figures because they don’t say what they want them to “.

    Yet the only figures on the article were a guess of £1 or £2 billion to set up an independent Scotland. The blog seems to have attracted a lot of unionist interest though, perhaps that was its purpose. Unusually Peter A Bell’s comment was just 10 words long! I also checked out the list of people Alex Bell wants to get articles from, an eclectic mixture including the editor of the Observer, itself an unusual magazine.

    Read another couple of articles on the site, one interesting one about Stiglitz and the CoEA. It actually makes some sense. perhaps a lot, who knows.

    I’ve also been reading various Indy forums and comments since the Ref, and some of the points made by Alex Bell and other articles, have been made by Indy supporters too, or people pretending to be Indy supporters, whatever your point of view. And I’m thinking that I’ve posted on the Herald in the past that the SNP should set up its own policy opposition unit, as the actual opposition Lab + Con + Lib is so ineffective as to be virtually invisible.

    I'm with LPW on this, at least to give the guy enough rope to hang himself. But there's nothing wrong with "constructive" criticism, the question is:- is it constructive or an attempt to be destructive? And in spite of the blog article, is Bell for or against Indy? That is the question.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And the ever courteous LPW also chose to omit mention of Stephen Daisley's nasty, transphobic jibe in that article. I don't care what Daisley's sexuality or motivation was, ithe remark was, in my opinion, far beyond the pale as he is now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is plenty of critical thinking going on at the level of the members of the SNP. It is very much alive and kicking there. What it is not is carried out on the pages of the Daily Ranger, Scotsman, Herald or to the BBC, which people increasingly are shutting off.

    This is what these titles want and need to help redress their falling sales and the BBC needs to find some viewer statistics.

    People discus and this is funneled upwards through MPs, SMPs, Councilors and candidates. It does get through.

    When the paid commentators chatter, they do do so for their shilling and Masters, and we must not let them deceive us into the trap of them setting the agenda. We do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that they sent David Livingstone off into the jungle a few years ago to search for critical thinking about the "named person" scheme. Arriving at the majestic vision of a waterfall on the Zambezi river, he thought that he could discern the words "illiberal... authoritarian..." echoing within the defeaning roar. And so he pressed on into the undergrowth, into the darkness, and he hasn't been seen since.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't think Alex Bell claims to be a "critical friend". He's making a critical observation. The question is whether that observation is true - for what it's worth I think it is - but maybe more importantly does it matter? In the immediate term, probably not. There won't be another referendum for some time and the SNP is riding high politically. Maybe in time the SNP's popularity will collapse under the contradictions of its policy directions, as seems to have happened to the Parti Québécois. But then, lots of things can happen in time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What observation? That the SNP need to keep developing the case for Independence? Certainly, but the article is simply a polemic, full of unsubstantiated statements, sound-bites and smart-Alex remarks leading nowhere, other than to say SNP Bad and Stupid. It comes across as a petulant schoolboy essay from someone who has been disappointed to find he's not been given the adulation from the SNP he thinks he deserves and has gone off in the huff to join Labour.

    There is no economic analysis, instead there are snide comments about nasty Tory cuts - does he think the cuts are just a mild inconvenience for a few - and there are no constructive thoughts about possible alternatives, or whether we are better under WM rule where neoliberalism is set for the foreseeable future, or under whatever government we may elect under independence.

    But he also misses the point that for many Independence isn't primarily about economics, it's about civic nationalism, self-determination, making our own decisions. And, sorting out what an ex-HBOS exec this morning called the "nexus between power and wealth" in all its forms, including getting those of us who can afford it to pay more taxes.

    Now that's a real intellectual challenge for politicians and bloggers alike, to show imaginative leadership and convince people that rather than having a two tier welfare state where the rich pay privately to jump the queue and monopolise scarce resources and the rest of us struggle or go without, we use that great invention, Tax, as an insurance policy, so that everybody gets according to their needs and not according to their bank balance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looks like you are ignoring Alex Bell's arguments.

      There is no economic analysis, instead there are snide comments about nasty Tory cuts - does he think the cuts are just a mild inconvenience for a few - and there are no constructive thoughts about possible alternatives

      Mr Bell's point is that there would be fewer revenues* available to an independent Scottish government than currently comes through the Westminster system. Westminster Tories might choose to cut, but the independent Scottish government would have no choice except to cut. If you believe independence trumps everything else, you might think that an acceptable price to pay, but it is inconsistent with the SNP’s anti-austerity rhetoric.

      * Based on what we know now still applying and as projected by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and others. Sure, things can change – there may be pots of gold or barrels of cheaply accessible oil hidden somewhere. But we need to base our decisions on something concrete. The White Paper is full of those somethings. Whether you accept its assertions is another matter, but it isn’t 600 pages of waffle. And if people think Wings over Scotland, and not the IFS and the Scottish Government Statistics Service, is the authority and has the proper grasp of the facts and figures, I am afraid there is – politely – no point in discussing the nuts and bolts. The discussion won’t go anywhere.

      for many Independence isn't primarily about economics, it's about civic nationalism, self-determination, making our own decisions.

      Undoubtedly. And I’m guessing Mr Bell is that camp. But those people are a minority of Scots. To win over the sceptics and to get to that majority, you have to win on the economic arguments, which is why the White Paper and other Yes Scotland publicity went very strongly on the economics. It would be dishonest to come back after the event and say, what we said doesn’t count. It was never about the economics

      Delete
  12. I still say no economic analysis. No figures, no discussion, no evidence. I don't accept the IFS as being a gospel, as it is fully signed up to neoliberalism and projects Scotland's performance on the basis that we continue with the failed economic policies of WM. There are many credible alternative scenarios.

    I repudiate your neoliberal assertion that the only option is to cut. That's what Osborne is doing and isn't that going down well at the food banks. The rich (and moderately well-off) are not paying their fair share of taxes, and neither are companies. Plenty of authors have spelled out how billions are syphoned off by individuals and corporates and into tax havens and the pockets of the wealthy. That's what we've got to tackle, not more cuts.

    Or perhaps you agree with the Tories killing off the welfare state and the post-war social consensus, which is disappearing fast.

    Yes, for many it is still about the economics, but let's open our minds to other possibilities. The "unaffordability" of the welfare state, greater equality, improving the life chances for the poor and so on, is a pernicious piece of propaganda constructed by the rich and powerful for the rich and powerful. Atkinson, Dorling, Stieglitz and others have shown it doesn't have to be like this. There is always an alternative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough on your other points, but to clarify, I don't make a "neoliberal assertion that the only option is to cut". I am recapping the gist of Alex Bell's argument. I do agree with him that you can only spend money you have got and that tax revenues will be lower in an independent Scotland. Therefore independence implies cuts.

      Delete
    2. The UK is currently spending billions it doesn't have. It's called public borrowing. Almost every nation does it, and has been doing it for centuries. There is no reason to suppose that Scotland would somehow not be able to do the same.

      Delete
    3. The "fiscal gap" is 4-5% at the moment. That means that whatever deficit the UK has, an independent or fiscally autonomous Scotland would, if nothing else changes, have a 4-5 percentage points higher deficit. Ironically, the more the Tories cut now, the less an independent Scotland would have to cut later to achieve sustainable debt levels.

      But things wouldn't stay the same. They would almost certainly get worse, but how much worse depends on the currency adopted, the debt/asset negotiations with the rUK, what happens to Scottish-based banks and the degree of capital flight. And you can't borrow unless someone is willing to lend. It depends on what terms Scotland could get from them. It's complicated; it's not my expertise and there are plenty of blog items on the topic written by central bank economics experts. They mostly make grim reading, I have to say.

      Delete
    4. ....or you could read some of the dissenting voices, like Stieglitz, Krugman, Keen, Hills, Dorling, Atkinson, Weeks, Pettifor etc.

      Delete
    5. Standard & Poors assessment of Scotland in relation to its potential creditworthiness was certainly cautionary, but by no means grim. Moody's and Fitch were slightly more pessimistic but again not disastrous. Scotland would certainly have been able to borrow, probably at a higher rate initially than the UK borrows at now - but there is a huge gulf between that economic challenge and the scenario that no-one would lend at all. That would simply not be the case.

      Delete
    6. there is a huge gulf between that economic challenge and the scenario that no-one would lend at all.

      Agreed. I don't expect the fiscal issues would be a disaster. Nevertheless independence would lead to major belt-tightening. I think it's a problem if you are campaigning on a platform of opposing Tory cuts, when the implied cuts from your own policies are much higher again.

      I forgot to mention that under EU treaty rules,an independent Scotland would be obliged to aim to keep its deficit to less than 3% - it is currently a nominal 11%.

      Delete
    7. So basically we've gone from "you can only spend what you've got" to "you can borrow but no-one will lend" to "it won't be a disaster but it'll cause massive cuts". I've seen that declension of the anti-Independence economic argument many times over the last 3 years. It's a classic. Along with the 2% of GDP that Scotland was apparently obliged to spend on defence to be in NATO when huge swathes of NATO members spend less, and it turns out to be recommended and not a cast iron condition. Along with that 3℅ limit on deficit in the EU which many in the EU don't even get near, again not an actual requirement but a recommendation. Along with the £1.3 trillion assets that Scotland would have been forced to underwrite had it been Independent at the time of the bank crash, when in fact neither would it have had any obligation to do so, nor even if it chose to support banks in trouble would it have had to find £1.3 trillion, but the amount related to banking activity under its regulation within its own economy, as the US did, as London did, as the European Central Bank did.
      If we are going to seriously scrutinise the economic case for Independence, it would be best if we focus on what is actually the case, not on what is not.

      Delete
    8. Those three statements are coherent because an independent Scottish government would have NO CHOICE but to severely cut back expenditures. You're right that other countries do go over the 3% EU deficit limit - at which point you get a letter from the European Central Bank requiring you to detail how you are going to cut expenditures and/or raise revenues to bring your deficit within the limit. If you don't believe this, ask the Greeks, who have to run a primary surplus at the moment.

      If you think these inevitable cuts are an acceptable price to pay for the goal of independence, that's fine. But don't pretended that independence is a way to avoid austerity. It's the exact opposite. It will bring a lot more.

      Delete
    9. However, I didn't actually say, "you can borrow but no-one will lend". It's the other two statements that are coherent. Sorry.

      Delete
    10. I pretended nothing in relation to whether or to what extent cuts would be necessary. What I did say was that such speculation should not be based on the predication that you first put, that Scotland could only spend money it generated, which almost no country in the world does. Nor should it be based on your further speculation that Scotland might not obtain credit, clearly implied in your comment that "you can't borrow unless someone is willing to lend."
      What remains, then, is the rate at which Scotland would obtain credit, a subject I referred to myself, and the subsequent performance of the Scottish economy after independence. That is the central point when it comes to whether or not and to what extent Scotland would have to make cuts to services. And on that matter, that's anybody's guess.

      Delete
    11. Thanks and sorry, I didn't intend to personalize anything to you. It was a general plea in the context of Alex Bell's article where he effectively criticized the SNP for pretending to be anti-austerity when independence would actually lead to more.

      Delete
  13. OK, FF, re neoliberal. I don't accept that tax revenues will necessarily be lower.

    Exactly so, cujimmy. Time for some of us to read a bit about economics.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mr Alex Gallagher: A BritNat basher of otherered Nats (especially when Jock of whatever gender, colour, or creed (or none of the latter)).

    Ane bonny Bellite vigorously Redcoat in full-on, macho head-butting posture in terms of "argumentation" as opposed to Mr Bell's sleekit chib-man style slashing, back-stabbing discourse approach.

    The said chib tipped with venom.

    Mr Bell - in effect - rattling-on in his appropriately titled new publication minus cited sources.

    The LPW discursively emollient as if Scotland simply requires a constitutional and socio-political palliative plus a wee dose o' something akin to "Syrup of Figs" to ease the bowels and release the constipation long-afflicting of our "North British" economy, too?

    Perhaps not.

    However, smooth as a legal eagle - and pleasant this is if not to the pheasant wheeched.

    But could we sometimes have a wee bit more "baws tae the wa's" constitutional houghmagandie from you from time to time, please?

    A wee touch of Robespierre or Hamilton or Raibeart Black?

    Otherwise, merci buckets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would go along with that. LPW is certainly no 'warrior'.

      Delete
  15. Even if we accept that you are correct about Bell's tone of voice, I note that the substance of his point is rarely touched upon in your posting. You say that everything should be critically appraised regarding the last independence campaign, which is good, but then you avoid doing so! Scotland would be facing a real nightmare right now if we voted Yes - a huge deficit, new currency arrangements of whatever form, and an expansion of the bureaucracy when it would struggle to pay existing civil servants at their current salaries.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I don't doubt Alex's intentions are good and constructive in this respect"

    Take your tongue out of your cheek before you injure yourself.

    ReplyDelete