{"id":7156,"date":"2014-06-06T12:18:34","date_gmt":"2014-06-06T12:18:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/?p=7156"},"modified":"2021-03-21T11:13:08","modified_gmt":"2021-03-21T11:13:08","slug":"just-say-yes-a-review-of-yes-the-radical-case-for-independence-by-james-foley-pete-ramand","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/2014\/06\/06\/just-say-yes-a-review-of-yes-the-radical-case-for-independence-by-james-foley-pete-ramand\/","title":{"rendered":"Just Say Yes? – A Review Of ‘Yes – The radical case for Independence’ by James Foley & Pete Ramand"},"content":{"rendered":"

Murdo Ritche (RCN) reviews\u00a0Yes- The Radical Case for Scottish Independence<\/cite> by James Foley & Pete Ramand (Pluto Press, 2014). This was first posted on Murdo’s blog (http:\/\/murdoritchie.blog.co.uk<\/a>) and has been slightly changed.<\/p>\n

JUST SAY YES?<\/h2>\n

\"th-3\"<\/p>\n

The cover and the title of this book summarize the contradictory tensions that flow all through the text. The word Yes takes up nine-tenths of the cover referring to the authors desire to give positive affirmation to September\u2019s independence referendum. Much smaller, is the claim that it will present the radical reasons for national independence. However, rallying a vote and constructing a case are two entirely separate tasks. By attempting both, the authors fail to satisfactorily achieve either. The book is entirely constructed out of these kind of incomplete, unresolved tensions.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The lines of praise that promote it as well as the numerous names cited in the acknowledgement are more than a marketing tactic. It is an expression of the \u201cgroup-think\u201d and mind-set of a people mainly outside the conventional nationalist movements who have recently accepted the need for national independence rushing to make up for lost time by re-shaping its policies. Locating their place in history is understandable, but it also lacks any groundedness producing a superficiality blowing them in many different directions<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, like many originating from the British Socialist Workers Party, they write like they heckle; lots of small, unconnected, one-line barbs lacking any deeper or related logic. This superficiality is not only found in the unfocussed thinking of the authors but appears in the language they use. There is an unhealthy use of media buzz-words and jargon which often confuse the points the authors intend to make. The first two chapters are the worst but it does get better later on. A word such as \u201cAnglobalisation\u201d is left undefined and is so rarely used later that its worthlessness is revealed by its absence. Yet the authors declare it a central concept. The idea originates from right-wing historian Niall Ferguson continuing the theme that a specific national or ethic grouping really laid the foundations of today\u2019s world. Similar views about the unique centrality of their national and ethnic group can be found from Scots, Irish, French, Italian, Spanish, Jewish even Lebanese writers.<\/p>\n

In a hurry<\/h3>\n

Their book was written in September-October last year, before the Scottish Government\u2019s White Paper<\/cite> was issued. Nevertheless, they attempt to give it a mention in the afterword, although they have clearly not read it. However, when the imprecision and unresolved tensions of Foley\u2019s and Ramand\u2019s text are set against the detailed and structured argument of the Scottish Government a remarkable similarity in outlook emerges. Clearly written in a hurry, it makes no case that is identifiably distinct from most previous understandings of Scottish national independence. In many ways, it is less \u201cradical\u201d than the Scottish Government\u2019s proposals because it omits any mention of the importance of constitutional and institutional modernisation by the establishment of a written constitution or economic control of oil and gas revenues through the creation of a sovereign wealth fund.<\/p>\n

Although the White Paper<\/cite> has many evasions as well as uncompleted aspects, its fundamental goals as well as many assumptions are almost identical to the \u201cradical\u201d case. Both adore the so-called Nordic model of economy and society. The White Paper\u2019s panglossian assumptions evade difficult dilemmas that need be confronted such as currency, while Foley and Ramand do acknowledge their existence and, in some instances, offer an alternative. They are right in their criticisms of the Yes campaign\u2019s evasive optimism for opening the vista of infinite possibilities while failing to see, let alone present any ideas on how to overcome, the difficulties ahead.<\/p>\n

The so-called Nordic model<\/h3>\n

For some decades, the SNP has trumpeted the desire to become a nation in the Scandinavian mould. So too, Foley and Ramand. \u201cA progressive case for Scottish independence would aim to mirror the best approaches to national citizenship under today\u2019s capitalism, creating a \u2018Nordic utopia\u2019\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a>p.3, Foley & Ramand. Page numbers in the text refer to the reviewed work.<\/span><\/span>