|
A long time ago many
members were rather afraid of contesting local government elections.
Everyone could see the various advantages, but some were deterred by the
fact that we would inevitably become involved. in controversies and
decisions on matters which had no relevance at all to our striving for
independence. Not only that, but our contributions to those discussions
would expose us to the delighted mischief-making of the class war
parties. However, as was always bound to happen, we had to become
participants and in fact have made rather a good job of our municipal
activities as conducted by our colleagues around the country. We have,
over the years, learned to live with the consequences of having to take
sides on issues which are not especially ours; and this experience has
probably stood us in good stead in Holyrood where our members are
constantly required to share in decisions which are not our obvious
priorities.
What we perhaps have not
yet done is relax a bit. We have suffered so long from the consequences
of unguarded expressions of personal opinion and public admission of
internal differences, that we have been rather inclined not only to
demand discretion but to expect conformity. True conformity and unity
need never be demanded on our basic commitment to independence. On that,
each one of us should need no discipline; and if any one of us abandon
that essential commitment that person should no longer wish membership
and should act accordingly.
In other words,
independence is doctrine and is not negotiable. All else is policy, and
that is negotiable. Not only is it negotiable but it is likely to be
temporary, a response to passing circumstances. We can debate before we
arrive at policy decisions, and should abide by them if properly arrived
at. But there are developments and controversies going on all the time
in the wider world around us on which a collective party decision has
never been properly taken. On such issues some diversity of opinion must
surely be permitted.
If none of us,
publicly, took sides on these important but not independence-specific
topics we might all sit in silent tact; but someone, exploding in his or
her own enthusiasm can usually be relied upon to erupt in print or in
speech, leaving those of us who disagree either to express an opposing
point of view or bite our tongues for the greater good of the Party. The
trouble with the latter decision is the old prob lem
— that if you don’t get your opinion on the record the world is
entitled to condude that your opinion does not exist. Years pass, and
unanimity comes to be assumed.
Sometimes we have been
unanimous on certain objectives, but not at all unanimous in the thought
processes which brought us to our decisions. It might be — have been?
— a good idea if our public statements had expressed the united
conclusion but had left out the bits of
the argument which may have inspired the majority but did not really
command the moral or intellectual support of all.
We are, for instance,
committed to sundry referendums. By now because these events have been
conducted by British politicians for their own purposes, we have come to
think of them as inevitable. But we have not, to my recollection, ever
properly examined the notion that we must win a referendum as well as
preceding elections, thus imposing on ourselves yet another handicap of
which our foes can be relied upon to take full advantage. So there we
have a policy. Are those of us who see referendums as a refuge for
shifty party leaders who don’t want to take party responsibility for
any act or programme which might be a vote-loser, are we to be
categorised as in breach of party policy and not worthy of membership?
Do we really feel that
those who act for us in such matters as the settling and functioning of
frontiers are doing so on
principles that we support? None of our business, you might say.
Irrelevant to our independence prospects. Perhaps divisive. Very
possibly so, but our representatives will at times have, to comment and
even vote on such matters. Look at the British squeals, because Alex
Salmond was wise and honest on Kosovo; and what do you think of these
squeals now that the victors have come to menace Macedonia?
We have never been good
at foreign affairs and our decisions have all too often been dictated by
the wishes of powerful personalities who have known where they,
personally, stood on such issues and have swept along in their wake all
who were willing to be guided by them.
As we now have a
Parliament which is functioning; as we seem to be in an unfamiliar kind
of interval when no major election is just around the corner, and free
speech is less likely to damage our prospects; as we might properly now
be able to draw a distinction between policy and doctrine; and as the
merit of month by month comments on the Party’s work from such
out-of-touch sources as myself is open to question, let’s consider one
or two of these wider political problems which affect us as individuals
from which even independence will not offer a refuge.
|
