OVER the last two days the US House of Representatives has made clear what happens when far-right elements are elected to office under the banner of what was once a respectable political party.

A group of about twenty far-right Republicans have refused to support their own party leader’s bid to be elected as speaker of the lower House in the US federal government and the result is, for the time being, total government gridlock.

The US constitution says that the House cannot sit without a speaker. Without the House, sitting law cannot pass at the US federal level. Those far-right Republicans who have always wanted to destroy the federal government (“draining the swamp”, they call it) have just discovered the perfect way to achieve that goal. No matter that the American people voted in what they thought was a democratic election, these Republicans are intent on destroying the institution they wanted to govern them.

So why mention this in the context of Scotland? It seems to me that if only they could, the Unionist parties in Scotland would want to achieve much the same thing in the Holyrood parliament. It makes little difference which of these parties is looked at (although the Tories would seem to be worst): none of them engage seriously with the issues facing Scotland. Instead, they see their role as being to undermine the whole process of government by, in, and for Scotland. Their reason is obvious: it’s based on their belief that others know better for Scotland than anyone in Scotland can ever do for themselves.

This might be the actual opposite of the policy of those blocking the election of a speaker in the US, who want to undermine government in Washington to increase control by the individual US states, but the net effect is the same. What Unionists in Scotland and the far-right in the US want to do is to undermine the operation of government.

The process starts with belittlement. Condescension is a key part of this. The claim that Scotland is incapable of governing itself is, of course, key to this. A whole host of reasons are offered, with all of them denying the reality that there are numerous successful states in Europe of similar size or smaller than Scotland, making it clear that Scotland is, of course, a viable state.

Then when this argument is lost (as it clearly has been) the objection becomes purely obstructive. In the US House of Representatives, there cannot be votes without a speaker. Blocking the appointment of the speaker stops voting as a result. In the case of Scotland, it is conceded Scotland can leave the Union. The right to hold the vote that might deliver that outcome is then denied.

The tactics of the far-right and Unionists are remarkably similar. Both are seeking to deny people the opportunity to exercise democratic choice. Each claims a greater moral authority. In the US, the claim is that the individual states are the basis of power. In Scotland, it is claimed Westminster is. But both are just convenient excuses: the aim is to prevent people exercising their own choices so that powerful lobbies can keep their power intact when people would wish otherwise.

What can be done about this? Three things.

First, it is essential to challenge the opposition to democracy that the Unionists represent. Why are these so-called politicians so frightened of the will of the people in a free vote? What is it about choice that they do not like?

Second, we must keep asking in whose interest these people are acting, whether it is big business in the case of the Tories or a terrified national party leadership in the case of Labour, desperate for any seats they can win in Scotland to shore up their limited ideas for governing from Westminster. Either way, these are not people acting in Scotland’s interests.

Third, offer an alternative. Common Weal has just produced such a vision in its new book ‘Sorted’. This is a vision for a country. I disclose my interests: I discussed this book with them during the course of its production. Of course, I welcome it as a result. But that’s not the point. The point is that if there is a vision for Scotland, made in Scotland, to be delivered in Scotland, what is the Unionist vision for Scotland as part of another country?

There is none, of course. There is just obstruction instead. And that is not what politics should be about. Politics should be about making democratic choices. But it is not amongst the far-right in the US and it is not amongst Unionists in Scotland. And that is deeply troubling.