The word pragmatic, derived from the Greek for an act or a deed, has changed its meaning over the years. In the 17th century as a noun, it came to denote someone meddlesome or officious and in the 19th century to mean someone who deals with matters by considering their practical implications, uninfluenced by ideology. You might even say, someone who confronted by facts, behaves sensibly. In his satirical birthday ode to King George III, after the latter's loss of the American colonies and when his mental illness was becoming well known, Burns wrote:
But facts are cheils that winna ding,
An' downa be disputed:
Your royal nest beneath your wing,
Is e'en right reft and clouted
I doubt the poor king read the poem or would have understood it if he had. I have re-read it thinking of Brexit and its consequences under our sovereign UK Parliament, and there is sarcasm in it that is apt today:
Far be't frae me that I aspire
To blame your legislation,
Or say, ye wisdom want, or fire,
To rule this mighty nation:
But faith! I muckle doubt, my sire,
Ye've trusted ministration
To chaps wha in barn or byre
Wad better fill'd their station
Than courts yon day.
Well, the fact today is that the citizens of the UK were polled and as a consequence we embarked on a process of cutting ourselves off from our major market and our closest allies, without any noticeable forethought as to the consequences. This was motivated by ideology and we are now suffering from those consequences.
In his desire to make some amends for this act of national self-damage (which he supported), our new Prime Minister has shown pragmatism over Northern Ireland and now relations with France. Presumably this was induced by his confronting the economic reality when he became Chancellor. In order to try to persuade those lovable characters in the DUP, he has announced that Northern Ireland now has it all, access to both UK and EU markets and even the opportunity of resisting future EU regulation. It appears that he believes that they are in a uniquely advantageous position in the whole world!
Hang on a minute. Isn't that exactly what all in the EU had before Brexit, save that then UK was also in a strong position by contributing to EU legislation? Those ministers who would have been better suited to farm labour, the Johnsons, Rees-Moggs, Trusses, Frosts and so on, driven by xenophobia, self-interest and an outdated concept of the role of sovereignty in an interdependent world, have shafted the UK and now Sunak the pragmatist knows it and appears to have embarked on splitting us into our component nations. Lucky Northern Ireland, but what about the rest of us?
I have been voting in the UK parliamentary elections since I reached the age of 21, a total of 16 as I missed one from being in the United States, and six times for the Scottish Parliament. I have voted in England, Wales and Scotland. I have had no difficulty in deciding whom not to vote for but have never found a party whose policies completely matched my ideals. I am sure most people feel the same but those more committed than I can work within a party to help shape its views. There is the obvious conflict – our own self-interest versus altruism – but also more subtle ones, such as the balance between economic enthusiasms and environmental concerns, exploitation and profit, curative and preventive healthcare, migration and employment. This leads to the issue of tactical voting, which I confess to having engaged in – to help keep the worst out. This is a pragmatic solution. But why is it so difficult to find an ideal match? Because politics is not a science.
In science, we have ideas from which we can formulate hypotheses or theories which can be tested experimentally or epidemiologically. If they fail the tests they can be adjusted and re-tested or abandoned. In party politics, ideas become ideology, a system of persistent theories considered sufficient to justify action based on belief rather than evidence. And the trouble is, without some controlled experiment, how can you measure the benefits?
For most politicians, the benefits are measured solely in terms of improved rating in opinion polls, electoral success, or alterations in economic indices that their policies may or may not have influenced. In a sense, this conforms to the concept discussed by the late, much lamented Robin Downie, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, but it may easily miss through short-termism the need for action on the greatest threats to our collective future. We are seeing two current examples in the UK including Scotland, the decline of the NHS and the increase in serious poverty, derived from political complacency and too long a period of power.
Testing an ideology has some analogies with testing a new treatment in medicine, except the essential one, a control group. Medicines are tested to assess efficacy and adverse consequences. To what extent do the benefits outweigh the harm? Ideologies are generally only tested to the next election and possible benefits and harms in population terms usually take longer than that to appear (Ms Truss provided an exception). We are still waiting for a definitive answer on the ideas of Karl Marx, now looking at the Chinese experiment having seen the worst possible side effects under both Stalin and Mao. We know where fascism leads and watch its effects again in Russia.
We are only now seeing the terrible flaw in capitalism, that it never took any account of the cost of exploitation of the environment and little of the costs of exploitation of labour. We are quickly learning something from Brexit of the harm of a nationalism based on an assumption of superiority, though thankfully less serious than that from Russia. I am concerned mostly with the damage done by ideologies that prove harmful, and this brings me back to pragmatism.
Over the whole of my life, the UK has been transforming and reconsidering its place in the world. It now faces a literally existential threat, removal of the U by fracture into its component nations. Nationality is the ideology of the SNP and Scottish Greens, a belief that Scotland would be better off, more prosperous and more at peace with itself were it wholly independent of the rule of Westminster. Note that this is exactly what the Brexiteers, so despised in Scotland, believed with respect to the UK prior to that referendum. Yet paradoxically the success of their fraudulent campaign and observation of its adverse effects on us all have stimulated a rise in the fortunes of popular nationalism. In order to save us all from a disastrous plunge into economic and social catastrophe, what the SNP needs now is a heavy dose of pragmatism and realism.
It was with this in mind that I watched the first two televised engagements of the candidates for leadership – would they show that they understood the problems and had a concept of how difficult life would be ahead of us, even before they succeeded in persuading us to vote for independence? You and I know full well what the primary problems of concern are – inevitable accelerating climate disruption bringing increasing migration and agricultural issues, increasing severe poverty, rising energy and housing costs, and failing health, social care and education provision – all UK-wide problems.
These in themselves are enough to discourage anyone from going into politics, never mind into leadership. But add to them the consequences of nationhood – loss of trade links and need to establish others, the trade/travel border with an aggrieved England, the need for a Scottish currency, defence in the event of future war, maintaining economic prosperity in light of essential decline in oil and gas, selective emigration to England, and negotiating access back to the EU, implying loss of the regained sovereignty, to Brussels rather than Westminster.
Well, none of these issues was seriously discussed but there was a hint of pragmatism with a recognition that independence would depend on a significant increase in the settled percentage save wanting it and Ms Regan's Truss-like suggested path to it. I got a strong message that they knew their party had failed us and that the main objective now was to increase popular support to well over the 50% level before independence could become a reality.
I was surprised that at least two of the candidates are republicans and would say goodbye to King Charles III, which I suspect will not attract many wavering voters but will undoubtedly be divisive (I have a long memory – my paternal forebears were Jacobites). In the second discussion, they opted for Andy Murray as head of their new state rather than Charles III. The thought crossed my mind of his celebratory gaping mouth and pumping fist on our Scottish stamps, but as someone with a world-beating carbon footprint, he might not be a good choice for the age ahead. At least King Charles III is aware of his.
All three candidates were pretty scathing about each other's performances in office so far, the apparently nice Ms Forbes concealing the sharpest dagger in her skirts. Clearly attempts were made to draw this to their attention and the attacks were less vitriolic in the second round. However, the candidates showed no clear policy ideas when asked about the issues beyond that of nationhood. Oil and gas were discussed briefly in terms of employment, the NHS in terms of success in avoiding strikes so far.
Potential SNP voters need to learn more about what they mean by economic growth, which must come from a Green agenda and emphasis on Scotland's specialist science and engineering skills, backed by tourism, arts and hospitality, and inward migration. To be fair, the format did not encourage any detailed examination.
The danger of a political party driven by a single ideology is that behind this ambition lie very different fundamental views on how to govern for the benefit of the people; electoral success may uncover a policy vacuum. This is what we saw when the Tory Party became the Brexit Party. My admiration of Ms Sturgeon and her pragmatic resignation increased, as I realised how well she had done to keep the members of her party from each other's throats for so long. She did well to retire while still on top, but she may eventually find herself dragged back into the fray, as the first elected President of the Scottish Republic. I hope that, before then, our politicians will re-adjust their ambitions and put the welfare of the people first.
If I am lucky, I may have one last UK election to vote in. I hope at that to vote for a party that, in telling us how it will do this, will show a pragmatic approach to the many problems ahead, remembering that pragmatism includes serious consideration of possible and probable adverse consequences of the actions proposed. I have already decided who
not to vote for.
Anthony Seaton is Emeritus Professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at Aberdeen University and Senior Consultant to the Edinburgh Institute of Occupational Medicine. The views expressed are his own
