The difference between a Unionist and a British Nationalist is that the former has never questioned the Union while the latter insists that the Union must never be questioned.
I was reminded of the above apophthegm when I saw the headline on a piece in The National today – Do Unionists still think we are Better Together as HMRC Cumbernauld closes? If memory serves – which it does only rarely these days – it comes from an article I wrote some time ago. Or it might have been a Tweet. Or something on Fecaboko, which I still used back then. Whatever! It is a useful reminder that not all who tend to the No side of Scotland’s constitutional divide are the same. This is important for a number of reasons. But it is particularly important when considering a campaign intended to reverse that tendency.
One of the other significant reasons that the aphorism is helpful is as a reminder that language matters. The terms we apply to things and the manner in which we describe them both convey and inform our attitudes toward those things. We talk about things in a given way because of our attitude. We have that attitude to a degree, because of the way we talk about it. The way we feel about something may not derive entirely from the language we use when referring to it, but at the very least those feelings are reinforced and entrenched by how we express ourselves. We should be cautious, therefore, about the terminology we use. We should make some effort to be precise. When in discussion with others, we should be aware that the terms we use may be understood differently by others.
In a political campaign, the message of that campaign is supposed to influence people in a certain way. It is intended to elicit a particular response and prompt a particular action. It should be redundant to say that language is critical in these situations. But it never ceases to amaze me how sloppy even seasoned campaigners can be in their choice of words. Look at how many politicians and other professional communicators get themselves into difficulties on account of some ill-chosen words posted on Twitter. We’ve all done it. But some of the examples are just so obviously wrong it is baffling how the potential for problems isn’t spotted instantly.
In political campaigning, language is crucial to the framing of the issue. For a rather crude example, if you refer to ‘the Tory party’s immigration policy’ you are framing the issue as the Tories and making the campaign an anti-Tory effort. You are locating the issue in the context of the ‘traditional’ Tory/Labour divide of UK politics. In that context, the ‘solution’ is to elect a Labour government. Which is most definitely not a ‘solution’ relevant to Scotland’s constitutional issue. If you refer instead to the ‘British Government’s immigration policy’ you are framing the issue in a markedly different way. By that simple change of terminology, you take the issue out of the context of old-style two-party UK politics and place it firmly in the context of Scotland’s constitutional issue. Or, to look at it another way (or reframe it?) you take the British politics out of the campaign and put modern Scottish politics in its place.
One of the things people find problematic about reframing is that it can be difficult – at least initially – to maintain the new framing. It’s all too easy to slip back into the old framing. Which is hardly surprising if that is the way you’ve thought and spoken about the matter for many years. This is where care with language helps. The concept of reframing is slippery. A few well-chosen terms and phrases can act as anchor points holding the concept in place. Getting into the habit of saying ‘British government’ instead of ‘Tory government’ will help you and those with whom you communicate stay focused on the constitutional question.
It would help Scotland’s cause even more if Yes activists stopped talking and thinking in terms of ‘winning’ or ‘gaining’ independence and instead framed the objective as restoring Scotland’s independence or ending the Union. The modern phase of the independence campaign started eleven years ago with the election of a majority SNP government. In all that time the issue has, with very rare exceptions, been framed entirely as a contest with independence as the prize. That framing took Yes to 45% in the actuakl vote on 18 September 2014. In the seven and a half years since, that figure hasn’t changed. It’s long past time somebody in power asked why that is.
I can answer that question very easily. Although there may be countless excuses and rationalisations covering the abysmal failure to increase support for Yes, one meaningful explanation would be the failure to reframe the issue in the light of changed circumstances and the overwhelming polling evidence which indicates that Nicola Sturgeon’s approach to the constitutional issue is not fit for purpose. If you doubt that polling evidence then look here. Or here. Or go here and do the arithmetic for yourself.
Yes support has not risen because the present approach, while effective up to a point, reached that point in September 2014. The obsessively ‘positive’ campaign had attracted as large a chunk of the electorate as it ever would – at least on its own. The obvious conclusion is that things have to be done differently. Either the whole campaign must change or something must be added to it. Something that is missing. Something that augments the now largely redundant campaign strategy and tactics that have been idling since 2014 – keeping the campaign engine from stalling completely, but not taking it anywhere.
The Yes campaign has offered myriad ‘visions’ of what Scotland might be like after independence and made a hugely detailed ‘case’ for going there all with the purpose of drawing people to Yes. It has been effective. It is not effective now. It is not effective now because while some people can be drawn to Yes having no previously existing strong commitment to the Union, others need to be given a reason to leave where they are before they can be taken anywhere. The idea that there are still ‘soft Nos’ out there in sufficient numbers to provide the additional ten percentage points required is delusional. As far as any serious political campaign need be concerned, there are no ‘soft Nos’. They are all part of that 45% at which Yes has been firmly stuck for approaching eight years – with only the occasional blip always accounted for by external factors.
Which is where the distinction between Unionists and British Nationalists comes into play. What the campaign must target is thinking Unionists. Those Unionists who are capable of questioning the Union given enough reason to do so. The British Nationalists are a lost cause. There is no point in engaging with them other than to hold up the worst of them as examples of what Unionism has become. For many, it will be something they don’t want to be associated with. The Yes campaign must create that association in order for it to have an effect. The effect of giving those Unionists cause to question the Union.
When they question the Union, voters must be left in no doubt that the ugliest face of British Nationalism is the true face of the Union. They must be relentlessly plied with truthful information about the Union and how it affects Scotland now, in the future, and to a lesser extent, in the past. Instead of a glowing ‘vision’ of Scotland’s future as an independent nation once again, the Yes campaign must paint a dark, satanic image of our future under the heel of the Union and the British elites who regard it as ‘precious’ because it is a main pillar of the structures of power, privilege and patronage which advantage the few at increasing cost to the many.
We would be coming woefully late to this reframed campaign. We all know why. So let’s not waste time and energy on endlessly repetitive accounts of the SNP’s failures and failings. Let us rather apply ourselves with as much of the joyful enthusiasm of the old Yes movement as can be mustered to the new task of formulating and conducting a campaign against the Union. If the SNP+SGP/Scottish Government won’t mount this united, focused and disciplined campaign, let’s find or form an organisation that will.
Our nation is in jeopardy. We must act now!
If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s cause.
15 thoughts on “The target”
I have a few basic rules on nomenclature, a few examples of which are:
Never refer to the “Conservative Party, Labour Party and Liberal Democratic Party” as a collective. It’s always “the British Parties”.
Never refer to “Tory Scum” or “Red Tories”. It’s always “the British”.
Do not personalise. The problem is the “British Government” not “Johnson/May/Cameron/Brown/Blair”
Refer not to “gaining Scottish Independence” but to “restoring Scotland’s statehood”.
Do not argue about “policy” but debate “the constitutional arrangements”.
Avoid mentioning “economy”, “taxation”, “public spending”, “pensions”, “currency”, “borders”, “trade” and “security”. Talk instead of Scotland’s “natural resources” and “human skills & expertise”.
Emphasis the “iniquity of union” and the “normality of statehood” not a “new, better Scotland”.
I have a few more but that’s enough for now.
“The difference between a Unionist and a British Nationalist is that the former has never questioned the Union while the latter insists that the Union must never be questioned.”
You might even say “fools” and “knaves”, respectively.
However, even the terms “fools” is disparaging – how do you expect to get somebody to agree with you if you are simultaneously insulting them?
So, I have amended to “the naive” and “the knaves”. The knaves, as you say, are a waste of time and energy. But the naive may be open to persuasion. They could be, and quite probably are, decent folk – think of “grey haired ladies of posh Morningside and Kelvinside”.
LikeLiked by 5 people
That’s the idea.
The secret ingredient is to completely refrain from the “vision thing” and leave people to supply their own.
An excellent way of framing the situation but even with widespread adoption it’s going to take some time to make a difference. Still, it’s a great start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, reframing as an anti-Union campaign is ideal for a short sharp campaign. Another in Nicola Sturgeon’s catalogue of missed opportunities was lockdown. The conditions of lockdown were almost ideal for the campaign as it should be. But the SNP is totally geared to local campaigning – doorstepping, canvassing, leafleting etc. All the things that couldn’t easily be done with all the precautions then in place. That’s NOT the kind of campaign that’s needed. That’s an election campaign. We are talking about a referendum campaign. A single-issue campaign. A NATIONAL campaign. A campaign that has to address the whole nation with a single message.
During lockdown we had a ‘captive audience’ of tens of thousands of people taking to their computers in a manner they never had before. There was a chance to engage with people no traditional campaign could even reach. A lot of these people were desperate for something with which to fill their days. We could have offered them something. We could have mobilised an online campaign force such as has never been seen before.
That opportunity has sadly gone the way of so many others. I will never forgive Sturgeon for the idiocy of shutting the campaigning down when she should have been firing it up. But we are where we are. And nothing has changed about the kind of campaign that is required. All that has (mostly) been lost is the chance to get mass online engagement. There are still more people accessible online then prior to the pandemic. But it’s no longer a captive audience.
I know in my mind exactly how the campaign should be run. Or I have strong ideas. I daresay others will too. But there’s little possibility of bringing all the stratnds together. There is no point around which the necessary numbers can coalesce. There needs to be a strong personality or a very impressive group concentrating on nothing but the constitutional issue. We have neither. It’s what Now Scotland was supposed to be. But it quickly fell victim to the factions that want to piggy-back their agenda on the independence campaign.
Yet another missed opportunity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Oh, am I? Thanks, I didn’t realise that, I’ll change my mind and vote YES”.
NEVER happened. Why insult people whose heart and mind you are hoping to change?
Insults about people who have a different opinion, are things that shouldn’t even exist in an echo chamber.
You don’t actually say “you’re naive”!
That would be naive.
If you check what I said in totality you will see that you should avoid insult as it defeats the purpose.
You differentiate between the two and target the ones that aren’t British Nationalists.
You see it so often these days: “You’re naive”, says someome to a renowmed nuclear physicist when they say that fusion has barely any radioactivity compared to fission.
What we’re entitled to say is not “You’re naive”, or even “They’re naive”. What we’re entitled to say is “I disagree with you”.
As far as NO voters is concerned perhaps I have an advantage of perspective – I have them in my family, and they’re certainly not “naive” 🙂
At least, they used to be NO …
They must be knaves then.
Are y ou calling my family “knaves”?
Well duncanio, if they ever had the misfortune to meet you, I doubt very much you’d have the guts to say that to their faces. But I’d love to be there if you did, with a mop.
I talked to a lot of NO voters during Indy Ref 1, all around Scotland while on business, and not one single one actually cared about the Union. I’d say the terms “Unionist” and “British Nationalist” apply to far less than 1% of the population, so any strategy based on any difference is doomed to fail overall.
In fact all the NO voters I talked to thought that “Better Together” with their project fear were total pants, over the top, exaggerating, lying even. But that YES Scotland weren’t much better. What they thought was that instead of brushing over any problems. YES should at least have admitted to them, and put them down as problems to be solved.
So the National headline “Do Unionists still think we are Better Together as HMRC Cumbernauld closes?” is virtually irrelevant to the genuine pursuit of a YES vote, even if it sounds well in an echo chamber.
National website home page headline seems (now) to be:
“Better Together’s broken promise: Scotland wasn’t levelled up, it was let down”
which is way better, and page headline:
“HMRC Cumbernauld closure: Scotland wasn’t levelled up, it was let down”
which is also better.
To my pernickety and perhaps rickety mind, needless aggression against those we are hoping to sway is totally counnter-productive, but headlines such as these ones correclty address the issue itself.
Yeah, I didn’t express myself well, getting over a 2 week long nastiest ever head cold which wasn’t Covid.
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From the Herald:
Sturgeon: ““In the midst of an unprecedented cost of living crisis, the May 5th election was already shaping up to be important – but after an extraordinary week people across Scotland will have the opportunity to cast their verdict on the law-breaking Prime Minister and Chancellor, and the shameful attempts by leading Tories to defend them ”
This is madness – ivory tower stuff, surrounded by nodding dogs who don’t dare disagree. Most people who boterh voting still think it’s about local issues, I mean, “local elections”, who’d have thunk? No harm in her talking about the Tories as a backup, but not claiming it’s about national issues which local elections can do nothing about. AND it contradicts the perfectly sensible leaflet I got from the SNP which WAS about local issues.
It’s obsession from Sturgeon about BoJo and the Tories, and many people have more things to worry about. Like the cost of living.
Sometimes, you just have to go with the flow. Sturgeon might not have chosen differently if she had a choice. But ANY democratic exercise in Scotland cannot help but be about the constitutional issue and the extraordinary awfulness of the British government.
Our local branch, with 2 SNP candidates in our ward, A and B, and for the last couple of elections at least they split the ward in half. One half is asked to vote A1, B2 and the other half is B1, A2. Yet the overall leaflet I got from SNP HQ (even though no longer a member since 2017), did that SNP 1 and 2 and other party, and was rubbish. The local leaflet was grand, the SNP PPB absolutely embarrassingly appalling my wife said she’s not voting SNP this time, and another posted card with a big picture of Sturgeon saying “My priority …”, ego, moi, all about me yet again, is enough to put you off. The back is all about national issues, nothing about councils.
There’s a (resaonable) unionist poster in the Herald I used to debate with until the Herald decided to charge £96 a year for the privilege of POSTING there, who said this:
“Can someone explain why local elections are not about local services but are about ‘cost of living’ and inflation which is a problem affecting every country in the world?”
being painfully honest, I was forced to upvote him. (I can still do that which is really stupid).