I'M sure politicians don't mean to lie, but they do.
It's in their DNA; they just can't help themselves. And when they're caught out, which they often are, they find ways of explaining what they've done that doesn't make them seem so bad. In the US, they'll grudgingly admit that they "misspoke"; here their get-out is to claim they were misquoted or misrepresented, their remarks taken out of context by venal journalists.
For politicians, facts are made of rubber, to be manipulated in whichever manner suits their argument. Such, surely, is the case with both sides in the independence debate.
Last week I chaired one in Musselburgh which was organised by the Yes campaign and which a couple of hundred people attended, some from as far afield as Granton and Prestonpans, while several hundred others followed it online.
By and large it was an upbeat occasion and remarkable for the lack of inter-party sniping. Having said that, there were no representatives on the platform from the Labour or Conservative parties, which probably would have had an impact on the tone.
Nevertheless, it was, said a former Labour councillor, enjoyable, even inspiring, and the biggest political event in the town in living memory. Indeed, it may have been the biggest since Gladstone's Midlothian campaign.
In the course of it, an SNP MSP flourished a leaflet distributed by the Better Together lobby. It was, he said, no more than a tissue of untruths, designed to discredit his side's case and make the electorate fearful not only for their physical safety but their economic well-being.
To the MSP this was manna. The more porkies the opposition spread, he intimated, the less credible would be its arguments and the more likely that its support would crumble and die. He preferred statistics, of which he had more than a few up his sleeve. This is always a good debating ploy. Statistics exude authority, especially when there's no chance of checking their validity. As someone once said, "there's lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Here, then, is a statistic for you to chew on. According to Liz Cameron, head of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, 60% of businesses do not reckon they've got enough information with which to form a view on whether independence would be good for them. Here's another statistic: 70% responded that independence would "affect" their businesses.
I have no way of assessing the accuracy of these figures but, knowing Ms Cameron, I have no reason to doubt their validity. But how meaningful are they? Of course independence will "affect" businesses; so, too, might a freezing summer or a scorching winter.
What's more concerning is that businessfolk say they don't have enough information to make a judgment. This is a common cry and one I often utter myself. As the debate progresses, and each side does its damnedest to best the other, it's easy to feel flummoxed. In or out of the EU? The euro or the pound? The Queen or Nicola Sturgeon? Membership of Nato or be nuked by the Faroe Islands?
The nature of debate is to score points and to say whatever is necessary to torpedo opponents. That much we must take as read. But the referendum on independence calls for a higher level of sophistication than most other issues. Doubtless there are a few facts which the Yeah and Nae camps can agree upon; for the most part, however, there is more shade than light.
For instance, no-one really knows how long North Sea oil will last. Or if the Tories will be re-elected at Westminster, thus precipitating a vote on Britain's future in Europe. Nor do we know when the next societal tsunami will hit. No-one – or no-one anyone was listening to – foresaw the banking crisis. Or, come to that, the impact of the internet.
It would be good, therefore, if from time to time politicians admitted they were bereft of answers rather than fib. Is that too much to hope for? Perhaps. But, as Blair Jenkins, chief executive of the Yes campaign, said in Musselburgh that night – come what may next September – we will all have to go on living together, preferably in harmony, and the quicker everyone grasps that fact the better.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article