By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Oh dear. It seems the latest view of Scottish voters which explains the surge in support for the SNP is that we are not listening to rational arguments. We are being driven along on a wave of fanaticism which ignores common sense and the reality of politics and economics. Wow. Who knew?

To be fair, this argument may well hold true for some people who would vote SNP whatever policies they came up with but those proposing this argument about Scottish irrationality might want to pause for a moment to ask which rational arguments is it we are deaf to?

As far as the current situation regarding the General Election is concerned, the argument seems to be that, in order to prevent another Tory Government, we should all vote Labour. If Labour won the majority of Scottish seats, this would mean they could form the Government and therefore continue to behave exactly as Labour Governments have behaved since the 1990s. However, if the SNP win the majority of Scottish seats this will somehow mean that the Tories have a majority and will therefore form the next Government of the UK. This so-called rational argument depends on a very odd view of arithmetic. It seems that 59 anti-Tory MPs would only prevent a Tory Government if those 59 were Labour MPs. If they were SNP, they would somehow magically become non-existent. That doesn’t appear to be very rational on the face of things unless you take Ed Milliband at his word and assume that he would prefer to see David Cameron remain in power rather than rely on SNP support for him to become Prime Minister. As this site has mentioned several times before, that’s a very bizarre attitude for any politician to take. It’s certainly not rational and would undoubtedly lead to Ed Milliband becoming a former Labour Leader in short order. Who’s being irrational about this?

The other rational argument against voting SNP is that the Westminster Parties will not recognise the legitimacy of SNP MPs because they fundamentally disagree with the SNP’s stated aim of achieving independence or, as Unionists prefer to put it, "Breaking up our country". OK, it can’t be denied that the SNP’s ultimate aim will always be Scottish independence but that’s simply not on the cards just now and it would be foolish of the SNP to pursue that objective until such time as the demand for it became overwhelming. The Unionists argument, though, hinges upon the proposition that elected representatives under the Westminster system can be ignored if the main Parties don’t like what they stand for. Whether that is a rational argument is highly debatable, but it’s certainly not democratic or constitutional.

The claim that Scots are being irrational is, of course, an extension of many of the accusations thrown at the Yes campaign during the Indie Ref. Yessers were irrational, spurred on by unthinking patriotism and nationalism of the worst sort. We wanted Utopia and had no idea that our plans would lead to bankruptcy within days of Scotland becoming independent. This actually summed up the major difference between the Yes an No campaigns. Yes was more interested in a nation’s democratic right to govern itself while NO was counting pennies and wailing in dismay at the perceived outcome, issuing dire warnings of poverty and bankruptcy.

To many on the Yes side, the democratic principle trumps everything else but is this irrational? The Westmonster Mob and their Unionist supporters would insist it is but there are a few points to consider before dismissing the idea.

First of all, nobody on the Yes side ever claimed we would live in a Utopia. What we wanted was a chance to govern ourselves, determine our own economic and political course and grow Scotland into a modern, fair society with a strong, diverse economy. That, in itself, is not irrational unless you believe the bean-counters who insist Scotland can’t afford to do that. This so-called rational argument ignores the fact that the UK can’t afford the political course it is currently following, as the Deficit amply demonstrates. The fact that an independent Scotland might need to pay slightly more for its borrowing than the UK does not make the desire to do so irrational given the other benefits independence would have brought in terms of being able to determine our own future. For many of us, it was a question of weighing up the pros and cons and deciding that independence was worth the possible additional costs.

This leads on to another aspect of the "rational" argument which the Unionists used and, indeed, continue to employ during the general election campaign. It’s focused on Deficit Reduction because that is the overriding issue in the eyes of politicians and even the SNP have been dragged into the debate with the perceived need to make their spending plans only slightly less severe than those of other parties. It is timely that economist Paul Krugman wrote a lengthy but truly excellent article in the Guardian recently in which he demonstrated that Austerity and deficit Reduction are failed and flawed policies. You can read his article at:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

The politicians, of course, rely on their so-called rational arguments to persuade voters that Austerity is essential. There is talk of balancing the books, living within your means and not maxing out the credit card, terms and phrases which everyone can equate to in their daily lives. The thing is, though, that a nation’s finances bear no resemblance to a household’s domestic budget, a fact which some economists have been trying to make but which has largely been ignored because the politicians’ sound bytes resonate with the public.

The difference is, of course, that a nation does not work out its expenses and compare them to a known, fixed income. A nation’s income depends on a huge variety of factors and a Chancellor knows he must review the finances every year and create new ways of raising money or cutting expenditure. Households cannot raise extra money as easily as a nation. A nation state which has its own currency can borrow, raise taxes, or even print additional money whenever it needs to. If you’ve ever heard the expression, "Quantitative Easing", you’ll know money can be created when required. Politicians know this too, but it suits Tory ideology to forget it and tell people there is no way the UK can continue to borrow. That’s not a rational argument at all, it’s a political one – and it’s flawed.

So, while it’s absolutely right that no nation can be super-extravagant with expenditure when income can’t hope to match it, borrowing or printing additional money when required isn’t the end of the world, it’s a political decision taken in order to maintain stability and encourage economic growth.

What this boils down to is that the bean-counters might claim to be rational but are actually playing on the fears of those who have no conception of how a nation’s finances operate.

One final point on rational argument strikes at the very heart of the Unionist claims. Scotland, we are told, benefits from being part of the UK, to the detriment of the rest of the UK because we are so hugely subsidised. Despite this, the Westminster Mob were desperate for Scotland to remain part of the UK. Is that a rational argument? Their case against Scottish independence was largely based on economic warnings but using the same criteria didn’t seem to apply to their own argument. The rest of the UK would be financially better off without Scotland but they want us to stay part of the Union? What’s rational about that?

There are two fundamental reasons why they pushed this claim. The first is that the subsidy myth is false and they know the reality is that Scotland has subsidised the UK for decades. Logically speaking, this explains their desire to keep Scotland in the Union but they daren’t admit it so they had no option but to stick to an argument which directly contradicted their claims of financial rationality.

The second main reason they wanted Scotland to remain is the loss of pride and prestige the RUK would suffer if Scotland were to secede but it doesn’t take a professor of Logic to see that is an emotional argument, not a rational one.

The thing is, when it comes to politics, very few of us behave like Mr. Spock from star trek. Most people usually make up their minds on who to vote for based on emotions and feelings, on hope and inspiration. That may be irrational but it’s how we work, which is why sound bytes are used by politicians to grab our attention and persuade us to vote for them. Every one of them claims to be making rational arguments while deriding their opponents’ plans as illogical or unworkable. That’s why, when the Westminster Mob and their Press stooges claim Scots are being irrational, we know we’ve got them worried.