This is what Henry posted today.
“I was wrong.
This Union did not disintegrate.
But I wonder if we can call it “United” any more.
The two main political psychologies must have been in balance. They are the Stabilizers and the Improvisers.
One prefers security, for things to continue as they are — if only because they could be worse. The plan for separation was structurally weak. Uninspiring as the No campaign was, it managed to sow many doubts. My guess is that this group must have supported the No campaign by about 2 to 1.
The other wants pride, excitement, to be part of a nation with a destiny. The Union has lost momentum, but remodelling Scotland as a small Scandinavian country did not arouse quite enough passion. However I think most of this group would have supported the Yes campaign.
The other political psychologies don’t matter so much in popular elections. There are fewer of them. They are the Catalysts and the Theorists.
One is obsessed by the personality play that is taking place. Who do I like? Who shares my values? It was fortunate for the No campaign that Gordon Brown threw himself into it in its last stages. This group is both deeply attached to its community and moved by the plight of others in far away places. They are activists. I now think this group must have been split but I put them firmly behind the Yes campaign. I must have been wrong.
The last group is interested in ideas and power and how great changes are effected. Many of the political class fall into this group. I think they too were split, for there was not enough substance in the Yes plan. As for the geopolitics of the planet, Scotland’s role would have been marginalised.”
Yesterday we learned that Alan Henning, the taxi driver from Salford, had been beheaded by the jihadists. A good man who just wanted to help.
I have been following the battle for the Syrian town of Kobani in which Kurdish freedom fighters are defending the city against the ISIS jihadists. I think about them every day, hoping for an intervention that will save them.
I’ve never seen Henry’s kind of political analysis before. Henry had told me that when he was serving in the military he became interested in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test and associated Temperament theory because they were both helpful in assigning people to the right roles and building teams with complementary skills and attitudes.
He believes the Myers-Briggs system is also helpful in predicting political choices or developing political strategies and is under-rated.
The four Temperaments are: Stabilizers (45%), Improvisers (35%), Catalysts (12%) and Theorists (8%).
I think Henry is probably a Theorist. He told me that there are many variants in each category.
An original and interesting man is Henry.