The madness of the Britnat

Surely I’m not the only one to have observed how, as the inevitability of independence becomes increasingly difficult for even the most fervent British nationalist fanatic to deny, the rhetoric of the campaign to deny the sovereignty of Scotland’s people grows ever more irrational. Perhaps I’m guilty of indulging in rose-tinted hindsight, but I seem to recall a time when a publication purporting to be a serious newspaper would shy away from the kind of demented drivel we’re getting from Scotland in Union and other hard-line unionist organisations. If such standards ever existed then they have surely been abandoned as the British establishment fights a desperate rearguard action against the tide of democratic dissent that has risen in Scotland.

Sometimes the arguments are so utterly demented framing a rebuttal in rational terms is problematic. All too frequently, the unreasonableness of British nationalist dogma simply defies reason. This is one of those occasions.

Arithmetic is entirely reasonable. It is, perhaps, the epitome of reason. When somebody denies arithmetic, they deny the very laws that hold the universe together. How might one deploy universal reason against that which negates the reason of the universe? There’s a passage in Orwell’s 1984 that captures the elusive essence of this, if only you can get your head around it.

“How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

Treating one-third as if it constitutes a majority is little different from maintaining that two plus two equals five. Or three. Or whatever suits your purpose. Holding that an arithmetic minority is actually a majority is “sane” only within the context of an ideology that is itself quite deranged. And this is what Scotland in Union is doing – with a lot of help from the British media. They’re subordinating the imperatives of arithmetic to their ideology. If arithmetic no longer counts for anything, what do you use to counter their “argument”? How do you debate with people who have abandoned reason without joining them in their world of unreason?

Fortunately, there is a part of their argument which is amenable to being addressed in rational terms. The questions asked in the survey make little more sense than the “special” arithmetic by which 32% becomes a majority. But we can easily point out the fallacies whilst keeping our feet firmly planted in the world of reason.

The Scotland in Union survey asked questions based on the premise of waiting until Brexit was actually implement before holding a second independence referendum. The idea is that we should wait until after Scotland has been taken out of the EU against the wishes of its people before taking action to ensure that Scotland isn’t taken out of the EU against the wishes of its people. Have you spotted the flaw yet? It’s a bit like saying you should wait until after someone has been executed before holding the trial to determine their guilt.

That is stupid enough in itself. But there’s more. Scotland in Union is pushing the idea of waiting to see what Brexit means for trade etc. before holding another independence referendum. Although we should note again that their own survey found only a relatively small minority in favour of such a delay. Perhaps because, unlike the British nationalist fanatics behind Scotland in Union, the majority of people realise that discussions on trade deals can’t even begin until after the UK has ceased to be a member of the EU.

There will be more of this kind of madness. Dismissing 68% in favour of 32% may be the least of it. We have to find ways of dealing with the irrationality without being infected by it.

Views: 2898

Many thanks to everyone who has been kind enough to make a donation.
Your generosity is quite extraordinary, and very much appreciated.
All monies received are used in furtherance of the campaign
to restore Scotland’s rightful constitutional status.



Please follow and like us 🙂

4 thoughts on “The madness of the Britnat

  1. Mark Rowantree

    Would recommend giving short shrift to obviously fallacious Yoon arguments. Whilst at the same time avoiding erroneously claiming that the 62% who. voted to remain in the EU are axiomatically now Yes. The truth is that we don’t really know. Though I suspect based on friends and family that a substantial majority probably are at least amenable to the idea of independence. To paraphrase Churchill this is perhaps ‘the end of the beginning’ and we have a lot more work to do before we’re ready for another referendum.

  2. Iain MacLaren

    Hi Peter – just a thought, but it’s tempting to suggest that it’s actually yourself who is dismissing the views of those who didn’t make up the 32%.

    I’ve just had a look at the YouGov website and the results were:

    Another indyref as soon as possible: 16%
    Wait until Brexit is clear before anther indyref: 32% (as you correctly say)
    No indyref until after 2030: 25%
    No 2nd indyref ever: 17%
    None of the above: 2%
    Don’t know: 9% (some rounding here)

    The 68% whose views you do not wish to be dismissed contain just 16% who want another indyref “as soon as possible”. The rest of the 68% either don’t want another indyref at all (17%) or want to wait until 2030 (25%), or don’t know (9%), or said none of the above (2%).

    As you rightly say, Peter, “If arithmetic no longer counts for anything, what do you use to counter their “argument”?”.

  3. Dan Huil

    I’m pleasantly surprised how good this poll is for pro-indy types like me. Especially since it was commissioned by a britnat organization.

  4. Mogz

    Brexit vote and the Scottish govt’s resulting pro-EU pitch has moved a pro-EU c10% of former No voters to Yes and an anti-EU c10% of former Yes voters to No, leaving the Yes/No balance exactly the same.

    I’m certainly a No and Remain voter who has not become Yes, because the question of voting against racism in the rules of Scottish citizenship is higher moral priority than EU membership. Much as the EU open borders were a good moral cause too. I became No because Yes defined “civic nationalism”as being for the fooks who already live here, aimed at an outsider hating bigot nat vote who don’t regard diaspora Scots as Scots, and proposed to make citizenship by parental descent refusable. I petitioned the EU, it always remains in the record for future reference, I cited ECHR article 8 (family life) to establish that Scotland should be treated as a pariah racist state not accepted or done normal business with, unless parental descent citizenship is unrefusable.

    I become Yes when you reject and purge all the racist nats who have anti-diaspora views, like Sillars, and you fix provenly bindingly as an immovable item of our constitution, before a referendum not after, this citizenship’s unrefusability. If you then offer it to 2 generations same as Ireland you will be more moral than the UK, instead of as last time, less moral than the UK even with all the racist anomalies in its messed up border regime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com