As I said last week (see <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxxii>), hatred is a bright, fierce emotion and I try not to indulge in it myself, not least because - to repeat - I missed the meeting where we decided stoicism was no longer to be numbered among the virtues. But 'pet hates' are arguably a different breed entirely - no pun intended. The late leftist novelist Iain M. Banks gave one of his characters a line to the effect that there is really only one sin: selfishness. Last week I gave a speech-act analysis of (among other things) one of my pet hates: promise-breaking. A strong case can be made that this is indeed often a form of selfishness: if you cancel an appointment at short notice without good reason, say, then you're signalling that you are the more important party to the arrangement and that your counterparty's interests matter less - so suck it up, why don't you? As well as being inconsiderate, promise-breaking is inefficient, too, by the way, because people shape their plans around their obligations and arrangements. My plans, say, may be optimal given that were adhere to our arrangement, but if you let me down then, had I known, I might well have organised my time quite differently. Another increasingly widespread form of selfishness is self-indulgence. Virtue-signalling is a good example of its being widespread but, admittedly, its fairly innocuous: there are much more malign forms. My Wed-Head of 29th September last year (at <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxvi-pt2>) republished the late economist Friedrich von Hayek's essay 'Why I Am Not A Conservative' which was included by way of afterword in later editions of Hayek's 'The Constitution Of Liberty' (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxvi-pt1>). I'm not sure I'd put my name to an essay with that title, not even if it was clarified (ie for a British readership) with a change to 'Why I Am Not A (Small-C) Conservative', say. But I'd readily put my name to a very, very similar if rather less catchily-titled essay, Why It's Very Misleading To Label Me A (Small-C) Conservative'. The gist of Hayek's argument, with which I agree and which applies to me, too, is that he is actually a (Popperian?) progressive whose faith lies exclusively in methods and approaches that work with the grain of human nature rather than against it. Our common critique of naive egalitarianism (ie most egalitarianism) is that it is self-defeating. Hayek is seen as a figure of the right or centre-right, but the best known exponent of that view is a philosopher of the centre-left, the late John Rawls, whose 1971 book 'A Theory of [(Distributive)] Justice' is still standardly cited half a century later - as, indeed, is the lste Robert Nozick's reply to Rawls, his 1974 book 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia'. These two books, which represent the (social) 'contractarian' and 'libertarian' traditions in US political philosophy, have their roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke (via J. S. Mill) respectively. My kind of progressivism advocates a really thorough-going localism built on sound societal incentive structures. Most of my political views are, I think, fairly moderate: I'm broadly socially-liberal, fiscally conservative, centre-to-centre-right, Blairite**-to-One-Nation-Conservative (ish). You get the picture. (Incidentally, I don't blush to be called right-wing but, once again, I think it misleads.) Indeed, I am somewhat fond of saying that the only thing seriously radical about my politics is my localism. The word 'radical' connotes leftism, but doesn't necessarily imply it; for example, Margaret Thatcher's longest-serving finance minister's chancellorial memoir is subtitled 'Memoirs of a Tory Radical'. And my localism is definitely radical - perhaps even extreme! [[ **I don't remember John Major much distinguishing himself as prime minister but, in <https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cu0vCeoVQ0U>, Gresham Institute Professor Vernon Bogdanor is more generous, citing both men's efforts to improve our public services; there is certainly little doubt that Major's desire to do so was sincere - as was Tony Blair's: Blair was still in office when he admitted in 2005 that "every time I've ever introduced a reform in government, I wish in retrospect I had gone further." In 2002 Blair had told his party's conference that "I believe we're at our best when at our boldest. So far, we've made a good start, but we've not been bold enough," and the following year he told them that "I can only go one way. I've not got a reverse gear," on both occasions implicitly echoing what he'd made absolutely explicit in 1999: "You try getting change in the public sector and the public services. I bear the scars on my back after two years in government and heaven knows what it will be like after a bit longer. People in the public sector were more rooted to the concept that 'if it has always been done this way it must always be done this way' than any group of people I have come across." (He should try living in Highland.) ]] North of the border there exists a particularly pernicious form of self-indulgence that I have baptized the 'Caledonian Conceit'. I have satirised this as the view that the laws of behavioural economics cease to apply north of the Tweed, presumably because Scots are a uniquely selfless people with an intuitive sense of the common good quite lost on the self-regarding FEBs south of Berwick. (By 'conceit' I of course here mean an ungrounded belief held dogmatically without justification.) Indulging the Caledonian conceit has had damaging consequences for Scotland: the (very good) 2011 Christie Report (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xiii>) might be truly great if this conceit hadn't be allowed to infect it, and most of the principle flaws of the 2015 Community Empowerment Act can largely be traced to it, too - in particular, the almost systematic evasion of a couple of plain and simple truths: that you empower people by giving them rights, and you create rights by imposing corresponding duties on counterparties (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xvii> where, towards the end, I introduce readers to another coinage of mine, 'Deontic Empowerment', that attempts to capture both those truths). An observation that I later kicked myself for omitting from that article, by the way, is that arguably the best known set of rights in the world, the first ten amendments to the United States constitution, turns out on close inspection not to be a 'Bill of Rights' at all, but rather a 'Bill of Duties': the first five words of the justly celebrated first amendment are "Congress shall make no law..." To repeat, self-indulgence is a form of selfishness. That self-indulgence is selfish is, one would think, a truth so obvious as to be scarcely worth mentioning but, for no reason I can account for, it apparently lies in a state of serious neglect. Two of our election candidates are presently indulging themselves particularly badly, for which reason I am sorely tempted to use this and next week's Wed-Heads to say why. I hesitate to do so because it amounts to negative campaigning in favour of the other three, particularly the Tory and the Indy (because the Nat is a shoo-in anyway). I have already 'campaigned' (the wrong word for my journactivism, but I'll use it anyway) in favour of Sarah Fanet (who needs no help) and Dr Fiona Fawcett (who, unfortunately, needs plenty) in last week's Wed-Head (at <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxxii>) and in my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/making-friday-finer> two days later respectively. Sadly, Mr MacLennan simply hasn't engaged enough with yours truly for me to be able to campaign positively for him earlier (but see below) - there's no reason why he should of course, but for me it's a bit of a shame. "There is no setting the point of precedence between a louse and a flea," observed Samuel Johnson. Dr Johnson has, arguably rather undeservedly, earned the ire of literate Scots for an entirely apocryphal episode supposed to have taken place ahead of a visit to Edinburgh Castle in the company of Johnson's friend and biographer, James Boswell (himself a Scot), and one of Boswell's compatriots and friends Mr William Nairne, a lawyer. Myth has it that Johnson cracked an irresistible joke when conversing with Nairne, who apparently needed little prompting to enthuse about Scotland being a land of stunning scenery, wonderful views, and so on (which it is), including, specifically, many "noble, wild prospects." But, as Boswell records in his 'A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland and The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides', the incident never took place: "Lest it should be supposed that I have suppressed one of his sallies against my country, it may not be improper here to correct a mistaken account that has been circulated, as to his conversation this day. It has been said, that being desired to attend to the noble prospect from the Castle Hill, he replied, ‘Norway, too, has noble prospects; and Lapland is remarkable for prodigious noble wild prospects. but, Sir, let me tell you, the noblest prospect which a Scotchman** ever sees is the high road that leads him to England.’ This lively sarcasm was thrown out at a tavern in London, in my presence, many years before." Wherever and whenever Johnson said it, the ire is probably undeserved because Johnson was the kind of wit who, much like the later Oscar Wilde, having thought of some wisecrack never could resist blurting it out. [[ **Rather ironically the producers of TV's 'Blackadder III' cast a Scot to play Dr Johnson in the episode where Baldrick burns the only manuscript of Johnson's dictionary. However, that actor's finest hour (in the Churchillian sense) is at <https://www.youtube.com/embed/FX51mwWyVFY> which - especially if you've never seen Peter Richardson's masterpiece, 'The Supergrass' - should be PLAYED LOUD! ]] Well, Angus MacDonald is neither louse nor flea, and the laudably motivated if borderline delusional Kate Willis might be dense but she's certainly no louse. (And if she's a flea it's a cognitive flea.) Nevertheless, Johnson's dictum sadly applies to the candidacy of both, because both candidates are being almost equally self-indulgent. The reader will have to wait for a few days to learn why that is true in the former's case, but for the latter, the Scottish Green Party's ludicrous policy platform is almost the 'Caledonian Conceit' incarnate - or it would be if the Green Party's proposed programme for south of the border wasn't almost equally risible, which it certainly is. Now, I take issue with socialists on all sorts of grounds and (like Tony Blair, probably) I deplore the hard left for all sorts of reasons - but I loathe the hard left for one reason and one reason only: for being so implacably hell-bent on destroying the values and incentive structures that gave rise to our great Western civilisation in the first place. The classic statement of the former is Max Weber's 'The Protestant [(Work)] Ethic'; for the latter, a socioeconomic policy programme that disincentivises effortfulness fails a pretty basic test for sanity. Whether Dr Willis herself is actually sane is, on balance, more likely than not, I concede - but at least the converse would provide her with a ready excuse for the otherwise monstrous self-indulgence of advocating and defending on the stump the demented social policies that her party so ridiculously advances. There's such a sin as allowing the best to become the enemy of the good. In this case, the best possible outcome would be for Kate Willis to lose next month, and the second best outcome would be for Angus MacDonald to lose. (There are, of course, a mere five candidates chasing four seats on Highland Council, so only one candidate will lose out by virtue - or, more likely, vice, unfortunately - of winning the fewest first-preference votes on 5th May.) Neither of those outcomes seems at all probable: MacDonald and Willis both look set to be elected, the latter handsomely. It's not certain - nothing like as certain as it is that Cllr Sarah Fanet will be reelected - but it's looking very likely. So, if we can't have the best, what would be the good? I'm not going to swing-in behind either of the two other fine candidates, Dr Fiona Fawcett (Con) and Mr Thomas MacLennan (Ind), both of whom would undoubtedly be highly effective in their own way. Instead, I'm going to fantasise about a possible third-best outcome. Dr Fawcett's quarter-century of experience fighting for her patient's** interests in the NHS will stand her in great stead when it comes to confronting the bureaucrats in Inverness, but she'll nevertheless need quite some time really to learn the ropes before she can be an effective voice so the place to start is with the candidacy of Mr MacLennan - who knows the ropes already. [[ **Unlike Willlis, Fawcett actually is a medical doctor, not a mere PhD. ]] As I wrote the other day, MacLennan's USP ('unique selling point') is his long experience. It's hard to exaggerate this. Come election day Sarah Fanet will have clocked-up about five months experience as a councillor - which isn't much, true, but it is at least five months more, on my understanding and Mr MacLennan excepted, than the other three candidates and, indeed, all three new councillors in Caol and Mallaig put together! To put it another way, if Dr Fawcett loses then the seven councillors representing the Northeast Linnhe conurbation in Inverness will have more than TWENTY TIMES more experience fighting for us to get our fair share of capital spending** than they will if Mr MacLennan does. (Eight years is ninety-six months, plus Fanet's five makes one hundred and one.) [[ **the distribution of current spending is fixed by statute so there's not a lot the Nessiemafiosi can do about that. Capital spend is discretionary, though, so that where they can and do bend us right over and - well, you get the picture. ]] That sounds like a bloody good reason not to vote for Fawcett (as if, anyway, Scots typically have to be most forcefully remonstrated with to prevent them from voting Tories into office). But it isn't. It's actually a damn good reason to vote FOR her. And here's why:- There's arguably a much better way of making best use of Mr MacLennan's expertise, which would be to pay him whatever councillors get - twenty-something grand or so, from memory - to become a consultant, coach, and mentor etc too ALL SEVEN Linnhe Bay councillors. Who'd pay him to do that? Well, if MacLennan were to cease campaigning and endorse Fanet, say (I've a vague idea that MacLennan is a Nationalist, but it doesn't affect the argument), the beneficiary would, presumably, be Fawcett. So there's a strong argument that the Scottish Conservative Party should pay Mr MacLennan and, even in Scotland, the Tories aren't famous for being short of a bob or two. In MacLennan's place, I'd insist on treating all seven councillors equally. If I'm right about MacLennan's political leanings he's likely to be hostile to Conservatives anyway but, regardless, that'd be my demand. MacLennan might well balk, at least initially, at being paid by the Tories - but since my proposal would result in cold hard cash moving from their coffers to his wallet, there's a chance he might be persuadable. What gives me a certain amount of hope is my current impression of Mr MacLennan - whom I've yet to meet, by the way. Nevertheless, I get the feeling that he's a man with a strong sense of duty. If I'm right, he and I have a few other things in common, too. We both want the people of this locality to thrive and flourish, and we both know that the key to this is a thoroughgoing commitment to localism. He might acknowledge, too, that there is a fair amount of common ground between the Scottish Conservatives and Nationalists about that, witness: that the Tories did not oppose the passing of the 2015 Community Empowerment Act (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xvii>). My proposal may or may not appeal to Mr MacLennan's sense of duty. But it might be his duty to think about it.
No posts