I have followed with intriguing interest the televised debates between Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond and former chancellor of the exchequer Alistair Darling in the run-up to the historic referendum on Scottish independence to be held on September 18.
Polls carried out after the two debates indicate that 56 per cent considered Darling the winner after the first debate held on August 5, but in what was quite a dramatic turn, 71 per cent judged Salmond to be the winner in the second debate held on August 25.
The problem for Darling was that in the second debate, he just repeated the arguments he had made the first time around while Salmond came back with new intelligent replies, many times exposing Darling’s arguments on loss of jobs and currency disadvantages as plain scaremongering.
I could not help recall that scaremongering is a very important – but insidious – tool used in referendums; to a larger extent than it is used in electoral campaigns where people’s decisions depend on what they think on much more than one issue.
Scaremongering works best when the financial security of the voter is involved. Darling played on this with his consistent attack on the lack of clarity on what currency an independent Scotland would use, but faltered when he had to admit that what would be left of the UK would not be able to stop Scotland from using sterling as its currency.
Looking back at referendums held in Malta, one realises that arguments about money always seem to assume much more importance than they deserve.
Malta’s referendum on Mintoff’s integration proposal in 1958 made much emphasis on the attraction of the idea that the Maltese would, eventually, be enjoying the same standard of living as British citizens in the UK. The referendum on independence in 1964 centred on financial security in the opposite way, with those opposing independence insisting that this was a step in the dark as Malta could not survive without the income from British Services spending – or so it was thought.
In the referendum regarding Malta’s EU membership there was also undue emphasis on the money Malta would be getting from the deal, with Alfred Sant stupidly reducing the value of the proposed subsidies to some four million Maltese liri in cash – whatever that meant. Today we realise that Malta’s EU membership was much more than about money.
Even in the more recent referendum on divorce, the ‘No’ camp attempted to sow doubts on whether Malta’s social services would be able to cope with the needs of the many abandoned and divorced women and on whether separated women would lose their maintenance when their husbands get a divorce. Undoubtedly, these were just completely absurd and pointless arguments, aimed only to scare people into voting ‘no’.
In all these issues, there was much more at stake than whether the plans for the future add up, much more than mere financial calculations: Malta’s place in the world, its pride as a nation, its steadfast belief in the European dream, and its determination to ensure the separation between State and Church.
In other words, those campaigning against change miss the wood for the trees and rely on the fear of the unknown – a basic human instinct – while those campaigning for bold changes try to find inspiration in an ideal or a dream that cannot be measured or costed by any accountant.
This is why I sympathise with Salmond and his dream of an independent Scotland: he has a dream that goes beyond mere financial gain – it is the priceless dignity of a brave nation that has contributed so much to the United Kingdom as well as to the world that should forever be thankful for the input of Scottish engineers, doctors and scientists.
I could not help recall that scaremongering is a very important – but insidious – tool used in referendums
When George Borg Olivier made his formal request for Malta’s independence 50 years ago, he insisted that things would be better off if all decisions affecting Malta are made by the Maltese in the sole interest of Malta. Today we can say that he has been proved right, in spite of the many problems that we sometimes created unnecessarily for ourselves.
All the scaremongering about the value of our currency, about the impossibility of providing so many jobs, about the improbability of raising our standard of living and of not succeeding as a small island nation has evaporated into thin air, and we will be proudly celebrating our country’s 50 years of independence just when Scotland will be taking its historic decision.
That is why I was struck by Salmond saying: “This is an extraordinary time for us all. The eyes of the world and, indeed, focus is on Scotland”, adding that: “There is much far too much, far too much, that is still controlled in Westminster. We couldn’t stop the bedroom tax, we couldn’t stop illegal wars.”
More so when he continued: “We can take things back to Scottish hands. Absolutely no-one, no-one, can run the affairs of Scotland better than the people of Scotland.”
He is dead right on this one, in spite of the polls that indicate a narrow victory for the ‘no’ vote.
micfal@maltanet.net