To my ears, 2012 is a fantastic, futuristic,far-off place, populated with daleks and space odysseys. But the future is now, and like all good science fiction, this prediction is probably as preposterous and as far-fetched as its title suggests, but with that tiny grain of truth that makes it plausible.
Unlike the poor badgers, the death of the cybernat this year won’t be as a consequence of a cull. More accurate would be to say this year will see the demise of the stereotype negative cybernat. But that would make a more boring, less Doctor Who-esque post title. Nationalists and independence supporters will continue to dominate Scottish politics’ digital sphere. They’ll just do so in a relentlessly positive fashion.
To win in politics needs professionalism and edge. Professionalism in standing good, able candidates, in communicating your message to voters and in calculating your strategy and tactics to defeat your opponent. The experience of 2007 and 2011 demonstrates the SNP has this in spades, while every sudden unexpected Subway sandwich stop and rolling news headline crash of Scottish Labour demonstrates otherwise. No doubt the 2012 Local Government elections will continue to demonstrate this trend in results in May.
Edge is harder to define. It’s the magic ingredient in any election which decides a winner between two even candidates. Even taking the above, for all the SNP’s success, to most voters there is little in terms of policy, or outlook, or local representation, to separate most SNP candidates from most Labour candidates. It comes down to which party has the edge, the slight nose in front of the other, to give it the win.
Political parties try to win the edge off the other by framing the debate on their own terms and then amplifying their message within the frame. The simplest and often most effective way to do this is to go negative. In Scottish terms, it helped Labour claw back to within one seat of the SNP in 2007, but wasn’t a stratagem it could employ in 2011 after lifting the SNP’s manifesto.
The harder, but in the long run more effective, way to gain an edge is to go positive and stay positive. And this is where our beloved negative nasty cybernats will disappear, as a sacrifice for the good of the independence referendum.
The referendum won’t be in 2012, but the SNP’s campaign, given Scotland Forward‘s launch, is already in action. Compared to referendums, elections are a piece of the proverbial to win – I jest, but if you turn up, look and sound good to enough voters, don’t do anything stupid and spend wisely you’re most of the way there.
To win a referendum, however, requires a paradigm shift in people’s minds, an act of persuasion so big and inspiring they become willing to rewrite the base codes of how they live and are governed. Much easier to be on the side of No, where I suspect Labour will entrench itself, Â where you simply have to tell people such a shift cannot be done, for positive and negative reasons, although I also suspect the latter will dominate.
But one way the independence movement can persuade people of the need for this this shift is through relentless positivity. If the transition from devolved Scotland to independent Scotland is associated with positive words like fortunate, blessed, diverse, beauty, unique, rich, colourful, potential (and all these words are just from Alex Salmond’s first paragraph of the introduction to ‘Your Scotland, Your Future’), then the paradigm shift won’t seem so big and scary, and the unionist side’s claims won’t ring so true.
I’d be shocked if several copies of George Lakoff’s ‘Don’t Think of an Elephant’ weren’t knocking about Gordon Lamb House, which explains in beautiful detail why this might just work for the Nationalists. The positive frame is where the SNP need to keep the independence debate to have a chance of winning, and the opposition haven’t yet managed to steer them off it. And this relentless positivity won’t just be from parliamentarians, but from party members, both online and offline. There will of course be outliers, but the SNP’s professionalism as it operates towards achieving its ultimate cause will ensure it amongst its membership.
So farewell cybernats. Given Scottish Labour’s new Twitter Tsar, negative digital discussion has probably just moved across to the other side of Scottish politics, but I look forward to editing your relentlessly positive commenting below and in the future. Remember, after all, a referendum is at stake..
#1 by GML1320 on January 5, 2012 - 10:04 am
Am I the only one who puts cybernats in the same file as The Illuminati, Swift Vets, the Men in Black, Wombles etc? A group who, if they exist at all, are attributed with a ridiculously overinflated influence.
The world is full of morons who support all kinds of political parties & have internet access, so there are trolling cybernats, cyberslabs, cyberslids, cybertories & even cybergreens. Each group has as much sway as the next i.e. not much. (Certainly agree about a positive referendum campaign for independence though)
#2 by Don McC on January 5, 2012 - 10:58 am
Not a bad post, Kirsty, and not a bad prediction. I would point out, though, that the negative cybernat image is effectively a creation of Scottish Labour and that negativity hardly has to move over to Scottish Labour as it’s always been there. Even the earliest posts of Labourhame, for example, demonstrate this succinctly. The appointment of ‘Admin’ Tom to the post of digital tzar represents a ramping up of this negativity rather than a shift in paradigm.
On an aside, I once challenged Tom over this negativity, pointing to Iain Gray’s various rants on the subject. Tom denied Iain ever said these things (despite me supplying direct quotes) and claimed nationalists were fair game for these attacks. I expect Scottish Labour, with no positive message available, will rely on their favoured modus operandi for their anti-independence campaign, taking their stand on the same platform as Cameron, Clegg & co.
It seems to be a flaw in the Scottish psyche that accusations of being positive can actually be used as a weapon against someone (or a party). I wonder if it has the same source as the infamous Scottish Cringe (i.e. our Calvinist roots)?
#3 by Kirsty on January 5, 2012 - 11:05 am
Thanks for your comment Don. I quite agree that uselessly negative online commentary isn’t the preserve of one party. I feel what this prediction means is that the SNP will rid themselves (as it seems they are already well into the process of doing) of the cybernat image as part of the process towards winning the independence argument, while Labour and others continue to flail: Labourhame and Mr Harris being the prime examples of this.
#4 by BaffieBox on January 5, 2012 - 3:29 pm
In all honesty, while I dont condone it, I can understand a lot of cybernats who overstep the mark in online debate. In a lot of cases, it’s in response to completely vacuous arguments, scaremongering and to be blunt, unionists sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming “lalalalalala”. Theres been many occasions where Ive been angered by people who really are intelligent enough to rise above the argument and should be able to remove themselves from their party-based, politically-entrenched position but absolutely refuse to do so.
Not only that, but the standard of journalism in this country is frankly disgraceful and the Labour party are an embarrassment to their forefathers, and both should be having a serious look at themselves in the mirror. I am not going to apologise for being angered by it all and I dont think anyone else should either. But amongst the hostility, people have calmly and carefully warned both the press and the Labour party for years that a continuation of their position and their behaviour will be their undoing and despite this clearly coming true over a considerable period of time, they still approach political life as if their behaviour and their tactics are correct.
Unfortunately, not everyone knows where to draw the line when engaging in online debate. The increasing hostility is something that needs to be reigned in but I can totally understand the frustration that causes it. Thankfully, I see many nats questioning and challenging other nats when the party, their supporters or friends overstep the mark. The same cant be said for other parties, and certainly not to the same extent. The standard of all political debate, on all sides needs to be raised considerably, and Im confident the SNP and their supporters are trying to do so. One look at a whole heap of politicians and so-called journalists on twitter for example, demonstrates people who have no interest in any ideology outside of a United Kingdom.
As a former Labour supporter and admirer of the Scottish press, I hope they sort themselves out as right now, I wouldnt shed a tear if either folded completely and thats bad for Scotland. Scotland needs strong and just opposition, both in parliament and in the press, and all she’s getting right now are people who care more for a broken Union than for a healthy Scotland. I dont blame anyone for getting angry with Scottish Labour or the MSM – in many cases, its deserved.
#5 by Ben Achie on January 5, 2012 - 7:11 pm
The electorate, well, the ones that vote anyway, want focus and determination in their elected leaders, with a good helping of commonsense. They’ve got that from Alex Salmond and his ministers, when there’s been precious little evidence of it elsewhere.
The referendum desperately needs to be debated constructively, but the irony is that career politicians are overwhelmingly conservative. Their natural response is thus to defend the status quo regardless, and without much thought as to why, because they are simply being selfish.
The desire for home rule and sovereignty makes the SNP potentially different, but this is only really the case if there is substance behind the mantra. Independence is about things being different, and, as a consequence, better. That’s what should be getting debated.
Where were we? Oh yes, the demise of the cybernat, but that was always a bit of a phantom. What Kirsty is actually on about is pointing up the positivity and discipline of the SNP which is likely to be evidenced in its shaping up for the referendum.
Which brings me to the Scottish press, a mere shadow of what it was even five years ago. The flight of David Torrance back to The Smoke does say something about the level of debate. Robbie Dinwoodie soldiers on at The Herald, and Iain MacWhirter gives outstanding analysis, but that’s about it as far as this anorak is concerned.
The Sunday Herald is an outstanding newspaper, but who would bet on its survival? As for The Scotsman, it is an eternal mystery to me as to why Johnstons run it the way they do. But people are less and less inclined to buy any newspaper, anyway.
The SNP has done well with the internet. But to be effective in garnering support any message has to have substance and ring true, regardless of the medium. Increasingly I am finding the best quality of debate, and information sourcing, is to be had online, albeit some of that originates in the print media.
Ironically (again!), maturity is increasingly to be found on the internet, while print regresses to the days when rotten burghs were the norm. Perhaps that says something about modern-day press ownership?
#6 by Barbarian on January 5, 2012 - 7:22 pm
The biggest problem with cybernats (or as I like to call them, the Fundamentalist Wing of the Alex Salmond Appreciation Society), is where no criticism – however justified – is allowed. It doesn’t matter if it is about policy or individuals, they simply will not tolerate it. In one article elsewhere, I was accused of being both a Labourite and a Tory. I’ve seen more creative insults at school.
Even worse, are comments about “quislings”, “traitors” and “these people will be remembered after independence”.
One seriously hopes these people are nowhere near any position of influence.
I should point out that there are bloggers supporting other parties who behave in exactly the same manner. However, the media ignores these people.
People have to accept that the SNP is not perfect, and that some of their policies are not “what’s best for Scotland”. They also need to understand that the media and political opponents monitor websites (including this one!), and will quite happily highlight anything which appears untoward. It’s happened before and it will most certainly happen again.
#7 by cynicalHighlander on January 5, 2012 - 7:25 pm
negative nasty cybernats will disappear
Not as long as there is work to do and moderation policy continues to be draconian.
#8 by Craig Gallagher on January 5, 2012 - 7:49 pm
I agree that much of the anger from Nationalist supporters online can be traced to vacuous refutations of pro-independence arguments and the still sadly prevalent attitude of patronising Nats that we are often treated to by Scottish Labour and the media. Post-May 2011 was probably the first time in my life I was able to talk about politics in a group of people I didn’t know well and not feel instantly on the defensive the minute I mentioned I was a Nationalist.
Your reference to George Lakoff is superb, Kirsty, not least because it neatly sums up the problem Labour have been having for years with the SNP, and offers a solution at the same time. The Scottish Labour strategy has always been to regard the Nats as irksome, as something outside the mainstream Lab/Tory ideological war happening at UK level. That’s why they tried to frame them as “Tartan Tories” in an effort to force voters to think of the Nationalists in terms of that paradigm, and not in the completely alternate way the SNP want to come across.
Honestly, I think a great deal of the fallout and farce that has come out of John Smith House since May is because Labour simply can’t adjust to the new paradigm, whereby they’re allies with their sworn enemies against a force they never took seriously. Imagine a Labour party strategist in 2009 being told that both the Liberals and the SNP would wield more power nationally than their party: pitying laughter would be the least you would expect.
The acceleration into the fast lane of British politics that the SNP have achieved in my lifetime is stunning to think about. Even outlets such as the Daily Record are wavering in their slavish support for Labour, recognising that an increasing number of their readers have moved on from simply being anti-Tory to think about the opportunities that devolution has presented to them. It is ironic but inevitable that the Labour party will be the last institution to come to terms with such a shift.
#9 by Doug Daniel on January 6, 2012 - 10:48 am
“Post-May 2011 was probably the first time in my life I was able to talk about politics in a group of people I didn’t know well and not feel instantly on the defensive the minute I mentioned I was a Nationalist.”
I can completely identify with this. It still happens to a certain extent, where as soon as you let someone know you believe in independence, you’re required to defend against a string of spurious questions and ludicrous comments, but not as often or to the extent as used to be the case.
This, as much as anything, shows that the anti-independence scaremongering is losing its sway with people. It can surely only continue.
#10 by Craig Gallagher on January 6, 2012 - 7:34 pm
I absolutely agree with your last paragraph. I really only get it from a few of my staunch Labour friends to the degree I used to. A surprising number of former sceptics now treat my beliefs with curiosity, asking me what I think will happen with the military, border patrols, the NHS and the BBC. I think they’re often surprised to find they agree with me on a lot of it, but that could be because I’m firmly from the gradualist wing of the SNP.
#11 by Ged Mitchell on January 5, 2012 - 11:41 pm
You are making an assumption that the majority of voters, of any party, are geeky enough to spend hours trawling the political internet to engage in political discourse; happily that is not the case. The vast majority of voters may have heard of the various party’s sites but haven’t the time because they have no interest in it. The SNP, I hope, will continue to be portray itself as a slightly left of centre party while the Unionists, who haven’t started their anti-independence campaign yet, apart from the black ops which have been a feature of their attacks on the SNP with the backing of the British media in and out of Scotland, still haven’t realised the power of the internet.
The cybernats, along with the SNP, will fade into the ether when independence is achieved. What the cybernats are useful for, apart from the idiots, is that they are still trying to keep in the public’s mind the total hypocrisy of the Unionist stance as they still have their snouts in the trough. The SNP can’t, or more probably won’t, discuss in the media the negativity of the Unionists and why should they when the ‘cybernats’ are doing that for them.
#12 by FormerChampagneSocialist on January 6, 2012 - 5:56 am
I see that Tom Harris is on Twitter moaning about one random online comment on Scotsman.com. This on the very same day as a Labour front bencher makes a racist comment and doesn’t even get fired!
#13 by CW on January 6, 2012 - 3:17 pm
It was an idiotic remark by the commenter but it is interesting that certain characters’ constant references and allusions to the SNP as fascists or even Nazis on the same newspapers’ comments pages go entirely unremarked upon. As does Michael Kelly’s own description of the SNP as “greedy bastards” in his first opinion piece following the 2011 election. The fact that that particular column was actually published was incredible. Kelly’s continued presence as a journalist and commentator in Scotland is a complete mystery to me. And as an aside, most Celtic supporters have about as much love for the man as your average ‘cybernat’. Two wrongs do not make a right but to pretend that the SNP is full of tribal idiots and the other parties are not is a manipulation of reality. The greater presence of SNP supporting idiots online is a consequence of the SNP’s far greater strength on the ground. Ged Mitchell is absolutely correct in observing that most voters could not give a flying proverbial about what flies back and forth on internet blogs (no offence intended to the sterling efforts of forums such as this one). Incidentally, Tom Harris’ goading of his imagined ‘cybernat’ enemies as ‘Braveheart’ wannabes is revealing. Clearly, Harris as leader would have remained incapable of understanding the SNP. The problem here is that the SNP understand Labour all too well, as many in the party come from families with Labour supporters or are even former Labour voters themselves. If there was ever an example of energy wasted, this is it. Harris is obviously a man with too much time on his hands, certainly he badly lacks a sense of proportion. These ‘cybernats’ might just even prove useful for the SNP in providing a nationalist bogeyman for the Labour party to distract themselves with.