The burden of proof

Those advocating separation must make their argument stick.

There’s a tendency to treat both sides in the independence debate as parties in a general election; both setting out a different vision of the future allowing the electorate to choose. Consequently you often see pieces contrasting how well they’re ‘setting out their stall’ or making their case. The implication being that the Scottish electorate are at a fork in the road and must decide which way to turn, both sides share the same burden of proof in terms of why you should follow their road.

But that’s not what’s happening on 18th September this year. To stretch the metaphor we passed that fork several hunderd years ago and made a decision, for good or ill. What’s happening now is that one group is advocating a radical constitutional change, up-ending 300+ years of history and becoming an independent country again. Now there’s nothing wrong with that position in principle and it’s a perfectly legitimate argument to make. But those making it have by far the greater burden to bear in terms of making their argument — their’s is the big radical solution, the one that will dramatically impact the lives of people living & working in Scotland. The idea that the Better Together campaign have a similar burden is just not credible.