That sound you detect in the distance is the fast receding hoofbeats of a horse which made a dash for it some weeks ago. You’ve probably also just heard a rusty bolt being shot home. Quite apart from the fact the animal is already gone, the stable door is almost off its hinges and needs more than a squirt of WD40 to fix it. The tardy stable boy in this scenario is Owen Smith, would-be leader of the Labour Party, who has said that if elected he will push for a second referendum once the outline of a deal with the EU has been agreed.
With such a staggering suggestion, it’s hard to know where to begin. Putting aside Mr Smith’s chances of success, it is extraordinary a democratically elected politician is suggesting 17.4 million legally cast votes should not be allowed to stand simply because the result is not the one he and his associates wished for. Mark Twain’s cry, “The people have spoken – the bastards” has rarely been more apposite. The bane and the beauty of democracy is that anyone can, and everyone should, vote. From the most intelligent to the dimmest, from the wealthy to the dirt poor, the ballot box is for all of us, and no vote counts more than another.
The other problem for Labourites of Mr Smith’s persuasion is that many among the prime constituency Labour should be listening to and representing voted Leave. Mr Smith and others – myself included – might not like that fact. We might deeply regret and even resent the future it has consigned us to, but it is an unavoidable truth. Democracy is not a matter of pick and mix. You can’t discard the liquorice in favour of the jelly babies just because you don’t like the flavour. David Cameron’s party won a majority last year with only 11.3 million supporters (24.3 per cent of the vote), on a turnout considerably lower than that which ensured Brexit’s 51.8 per cent win. Yet nobody questioned the legitimacy of the Tory mandate. Sadly, nowhere is the sanctity of the ballot box better or more bitterly understood than in Scotland where we have frequently had to thole Westminster governments elected by other parts of the UK whose aspirations, conditions and outlook were very different from ours.
I am all for Nicola Sturgeon trying to negotiate a way in which to honour the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people to stay in the EU. While that discussion is ongoing, however, there is also no doubt in my mind that unless or until there is a dramatic change in our status we, like the rest of Britain, have no option but to make the best of the cards we have been dealt. To do otherwise is to imply some votes matter more than others, and that there is a right way and a wrong way to vote. It is to suggest those 17.4 million Brexiters are uniformly unintelligent, thoughtless, short-sighted, selfish, xenophobic, hoodwinked – add whatever pejorative terms you like to the list. Whereas had the views of the "thinking people", the middle classes and the privileged prevailed, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
For one thing, if Mr Smith managed to negotiate a second referendum, a frightening precedent would be set and the outcome of every general election or referendum hereafter cast into doubt and confusion. For another – even more alarmingly – it would show that those in charge will only listen to the people when it suits them. You don’t need a degree in history or political science to know therein lies rebellion and revolt.
In fact, you don’t need any education at all to understand that our only option right now is to get on with things as best and positively as we can. On a train from Dundee last week, I got into conversation with a man who has never voted. He has a full-time job, and spends his spare time raising funds for charity. Far from the feckless image of the non-voter many of us might hold, he explained he felt he would need much more information and knowledge than he ever received to make an informed decision. He worried his 18-year-old daughter, who voted in June, was in a similar position.
His comments echo those on the eve of the referendum who begged for more facts, fewer lies, and the unvarnished truth. Despite not getting this, most still voted, some undoubtedly in ignorance or out of prejudice (which of us hasn’t or doesn’t?) and some in receipt of misleading or unclear information. As is the case with elections the world over.
In such circumstances, the philosophy of George Davie, author of the hugely influential book The Democratic Intellect, is important. It was Davie’s contention, and that of enlightened Scots before him, that by improving the level of people’s education, they would make more informed decisions. The better educated you are, the better your chances of improving your situation and voting for or creating a more civilised world. In so doing you start a virtuous spiral that will reverberate down the generations. Thanks to this attitude, which inspired Andrew Carnegie’s vision, the Scottish library service has been second to none, allowing those who could not stay at school or afford university to educate themselves. Later came the Open University, another model of self-improvement aimed at those who had to go out to work while gaining a degree.
What Owen Smith and other Leave deniers clearly believe, however, is that millions of voters have taken an ill-informed and reckless decision, one that proper grown-ups should have the chance to revoke. But instead of trying to put the sand back into the egg-timer, perhaps they should consider that for many Brexiters, their choice will have been as considered and closely argued as that of EU champions and liberals. In terms of their own lives, leaving Europe and seeing an end to freedom of travel, or trade tariffs, or whatever else they object to, is obviously preferable. Who are Mr Smith and people like me to say that their view is less valid than ours, or that in their situation we might not feel the same? Are the majority of those 17.4 million far worse educated than the 16 million Remainers? It’s unlikely.
So much then, you might say, for the benefits of intellectual attainment. And while better education is inarguably the answer to most of society’s worst problems, when it comes to voting it creates a difficulty all its own. The gulf between those with deeper understanding and those without becomes another political trench, with the lives on one side unimaginably different from those on the other. Democracy cannot solve such disparities, not quickly anyway. But at least it allows everyone to have a say. If we who are such upholders of freedom of speech and equality don’t happen to like the voice that speaks loudest, there is nothing we can or should do, other than accept the verdict. As Winston Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel