As has been widely noted, the tone of the debate about independence has gradually gone from bad to worse, and yesterday’s heavy-handed legal action against National Collective hasn’t helped at all – ironic, because their own contributions to the debate are typically smart, calmly argued, and creative in just the ways they promised from the start.
Twitter in particular has become incredibly vitriolic, with people on both sides losing the head to partisanship – notably by defending the indefensible on “their own side” or setting up inane “parody” accounts which fail to note that parody goes best with subtle humour, not dull and repetitive bludgeoning.
Sure, that might just be a bubble, and it may well all come down to the doorstep. But there are plenty of politicians on both sides using the same divisive rhetoric, and they’ll be doing it on TV and at hustings as well as on the doorsteps. And I do really think that dismissing Twitter is naive: all the major players from the parties and the campaigns are there, alongside almost all Scotland’s key journalists and enough politically engaged civilians to make a difference. It does help set the tone, and the tone stinks.
Although there are problems on both sides, it’s not that both are offering the same range of messages. Across the whole Yes side, great optimism and inspiring enthusiasm sit alongside vitriolic carping and bile from keyboard warriors. The No campaign’s style is relatively consistent, relying as it does primarily on pretending the SNP are the Yes campaign, and then picking holes in the SNP’s policy positions. They have their bampots online, but fewer of them. Conversely, they have no-one trying to set out an inspiring vision of a future United Kingdom.
Because they don’t need to. And this collective bitter tone, driven by activists on both sides, helps the No camp. All the muddy little squabbling in the letters pages or online turns more undecided voters off the debate. And, given they know what Britain looks like now and they don’t really know what an independent Scotland would look like, that boosts the No campaign. In fact, I’d be surprised if the No campaign’s internal strategy meetings couldn’t be summed up as “go round the country and whip up apathy“.
Specifically, independence polls strongest in working class areas, parts of Scotland which have been let down by the Westminster consensus, but also parts of Scotland where turnout is often lowest. If the No campaign can depress and bore enough of the electorate into abstention, they’ll win. In fact, they’ll win anyway without a change of tone.
The broad Yes side still spend too long getting down and dirty with the minutiae of policy, and all that nitty-gritty risks distracting from The Vision Thing. Whatever SNP policy may be, an independent Scotland won’t necessarily stay in NATO, or keep the pound, or go genuinely 100% renewable, or be a socialist paradise or a tax haven.
The crucial point of this vote is that, for the first time, those who live in Scotland will make all those decisions for themselves. We’re being offered a chance to ditch an unreformable Westminster and be responsible for all our own mistakes and all our own triumphs. Surely that big picture can inspire more effectively than getting into nit-picking with the other side? Because, although both sides share responsibility for the state of the debate, as a former boss of mine once pointed out, don’t wrestle pigs in the mud, because the pig will win and the pig will enjoy it.
#1 by David on April 11, 2013 - 4:07 pm
Another good post James, well done.
#2 by EyeEdinburgh on April 11, 2013 - 4:12 pm
Agree wholeheartedly with most of this.
The No campaign’s style is relatively consistent, relying as it does primarily on pretending the SNP are the Yes campaign, and then picking holes in the SNP’s policy positions.
I’m not part of the No campaign. But it is in fact really annoying to be told, consistently, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”. The SNP is in theory at least wanting the Yes Scotland campaign to win: they’re setting the date for referendum and have handwaved a date on which, in the unlikely event they win the referendum, they intend to have independence. Meantime they repeatedly and consistently make clear they’re part of the reactionary streak in Scottish politics that make all the happy fantasises of better-Scotland post-indy look so improbable.
If the Yes Scotland campaign is supposed to be independent from the SNP, Yes Scotland supporters should be condemning the SNP for its failures, not defending them or insisting that undecided Scots shouldn’t pay attention to them.
#3 by AFaulds on April 11, 2013 - 5:06 pm
Yes Scotland has become a victim of the SNP’s success, I think. The “broad tent” approach of the SNP has suddenly become a liability. Before, by giving independence supporters a mostly unified voice, it was perhaps more able to get independence on the agenda than a multitude of smaller parties would have been able to. Now that we’re having a referendum, the fact a single party is so dominant (we’re talking about 10x as many members as the SGP and SSP combined) is bad both because it’s an easy target and because I think a lot of people are afraid that if they start to criticise it at this point when we’re so close, the whole tent will collapse and then we’ll all be buggered.
Not that I don’t agree that people should criticise the SNP when necessary, just that I think I can understand why people might be so reluctant to do so.
#4 by Ellie March on April 11, 2013 - 5:48 pm
So we’d have the No campaign “condemning the SNP for it failures” (a central plank of its strategy) now also joined by members of the Yes campaign “condemning the SNP for its failures”. OK.
If that can be balanced out by No campaign members also “condemning Westminster for its failures” then I’m right with you. Do you think that should happen as well ? If you do, then why not say as much in the interests of Yes/No balance ?
#5 by Iain Menzies on April 11, 2013 - 6:58 pm
Unionist DO condem other unionists for their failures…or have you never even heard of PMQ’s?
#6 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2013 - 10:23 pm
Yes, they condemn them in the bearpit of PMQs, but then the next day we get FMQs, where Patrick Harvie and Margo McDonald are more than capable of criticising the SNP, despite being on the same side of the indy debate.
But that’s missing the point anyway. EE is talking about YesScotland condemning SNP actions. When was the last time BetterTogether released an announcement criticising a Tory policy? What’s BetterTogether’s opinion on the Bedroom Tax? Why aren’t BetterTogether highlighting the failures of the Coalition? I think that’s the point Ellie is making.
#7 by Iain Menzies on April 12, 2013 - 12:14 am
Maybe we are both missing the point.
Yes Scotland and the SNP seem to be running two different referendum campaigns alongside each other. Take the NATO thing. It would be the easiest thing to say that independence does not equate to an SNP government. That should be a central message of the indy campaign and it just isnt. instead you now have the indy campaign in general saying OF COURSE we would be in NATO.
#8 by Ellie March on April 12, 2013 - 10:24 am
Thanks Doug, yes that’s right. Like Jane I don’t have any problem with criticizing the SNP for their flaws or failures in govt. But if that’s also to be done in the context of the indyref campaign, then it seems at least as valid to shout about the fundamental and massive logical inconsistency at the heart of Better Together. Namely that half of the partnership is a Con-Dem alliance who attack the sick, disabled and poor – and who will continue to do so if re-elected in 2015. Thats certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility, and its not as if Labour will be significantly different in office. BetterTogether is a fallacy for those under attack. So lets point that out loudly.
#9 by Aidan on April 11, 2013 - 4:35 pm
Independent or not, no country is responsible for all their mistakes or their triumphs alone, just as no person is. Scotland will continue to exist within a complex network of state and non-state actors which will heavily influence our future.
The question isn’t “do we want to be masters of our own destiny or not” it’s “what’s the best way for us to influence our future”, and that’s a very different thing.
#10 by EyeEdinburgh on April 11, 2013 - 4:41 pm
Aidan: “what’s the best way for us to influence our future”
THIS.
The number of events/organisations organised by YesScot/The SNP supporters which purport to discuss Scotland’s future but which exclude anyone not already determined to vote for independence… well, I haven’t counted, but there’s only two I’ve seen in the past year or so which were deliberately open to all, regardless of how they’d decided to vote.
#11 by Douglas McLellan on April 11, 2013 - 4:42 pm
I totally agree. As someone who as only recently decided to move from undecided to a committed Yes voter I look at twitter, blogs and other places where activists on both sides can comment and despair.
You say that the tone is bitter but I suspect you are being purposely polite. The tone is one of hate and anger. Utterly misplaced mind you but hate and anger never the less. The problem is, at least how I see things, that the Yes side is the quickest to insult and vitriol (although far from exclusively).
Where the Better Together side can add misleading statistics to twisted opinion the Yes Scotland side have forgotten any idea they may have had about offering a positive and aspirational view of an indy Scotland and have resorted to constant petty complaints (the people of Kent get 2p more per sighting of a Haggis than those good solid Scots in Moray) as if Scotland is not devolved and actually got more powers. If it was just complaints I could cope but the hate is worrying.
The fact that some Scots want to remain in the UK seems to infuriate those who want indy. There is no respect for the views who differ. No argument is enough, no personal feeling is acceptable. For many on twitter and elsewhere wanting to remain British just results in insults about sharing platforms with Tories, clearly wanting all the Westminster cuts to continue and a general condemnation of being anti-Scottish. This is wrong. Respect other peoples views. You can challenge points of view and present new facts but if someone says that they want to be British then thats what they want. Whilst the three unionist parties share this platform it should be recognised that even non-party political people will share their point of view.
Likewise the Better Together side need to remember that not all indy supporters are SNP members and that there are a number of non-party political people who might not want a President Salmond but do want a Scotland that has strong civil liberties, a fair democracy and decision making as close as possible to local communities (me for example). Westminster and the unionist parties have had a chance on these issues and failed.
As James says in his post, we need to have a good turnout for the result to mean anything. A Yes or No vote with a low turnout could result in confusion and arguments. We need a positive vision for Scotland. That means looking away from Westminster, not constantly carping about England and the English and instead offering a message that says Scotland can be a better nation.
#12 by James on April 11, 2013 - 5:18 pm
Thanks Douglas, I think we’re in full agreement here.
#13 by Robert Blake on April 11, 2013 - 5:42 pm
Perhaps as a “YES” adherent, you engaged mostly with other “YES” adherents and say mainly comments, good and bad, from that side.
I was a “NO” adherent. I spoke mainly to my side, I read the words of politicians, activists and elder statesmen from my side, and mainly from one party.
I am afraid you never saw such an unreasoning outpouring of bile and vitriol. And the thing that pushed me to “undecided” and latterly to a tentative “YES” was the fact that it was not based on ideology, but because of a threat to power and patronage.
At least the “YES” people, even the vinegar tongued ones, can point to a positive ideology of benefit to people.
Unfortunately for my late comrades, the “YES” campaigner’s jibe about still waiting for “The positive case for the Union” where politicians assure us that it is coming, but someone else will be along to explain it, is all too true.
Interesting to see ig others get to read this
#14 by Robert Blake on April 11, 2013 - 10:49 pm
I posted a link and text about this below, but the whole article might be of interest to you, as it covers the whole area
http://jenniferdempsie.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/negative-cyber-politics-is-problem-for.html
(mods, please delete my previous attempt at this reply, that carried the quote ad not the link thanks)
#15 by Stuart Winton on April 11, 2013 - 6:42 pm
Don’t want to rehash the bickering in the other thread, James, but since the Rev Stu falsely accused me of being someone else who’s posting under a pseudonym and is clearly deeply unpopular on his site then I should at least be afforded the chance to refute that. (He’ll be glad to know that I can’t afford lawyers!)
But at least he’s now provided some kind of rationale for the use of the title Reverend rather than accusing of anyone questioning it of being bigoted (sic) and sectarian (sic), but if he uses it I can’t see why he’s so tetchy about clarifying its provenance, irrespective of why he uses it.
#16 by Longshanker on April 11, 2013 - 7:13 pm
James
An unreformable Westiminster sounds defeatist.
Plus I would argue that it’s imperative with or without Indy that Westminster be reformed.
Unreformed, an injured and belligerent Westminster could cause lasting and serious damage to a struggling Indy Scotland.
The McCrone report alludes to this and the basic principles referred to therein are sound and not without historical precedent.
I’m no fan of Scottish Nationalists but neither am I unsympathetic to the idea of an Independent Scotland.
It’s English Nationalism with Scotland as its focus which I genuinely fear in the event of a Yes vote.
Apologies for the bleakness, but I actually see Indy as mostly irrelevant to solving anything pressing at this particular moment in time.
There’s no way I’d vote No due to my negativity, bordering on hostility, toward Westminster, but the arguments for Yes are almost as dispiriting as those put forward by the No camp.
I’m staunchly a Dinnae Ken and, at present, will be spoiling my ballot paper because there’s nothing else on offer.
And you’re right about the debate in general. It’s one big dispiriting yawn which has started from the high point of the ground and is now definitively subterranean.
It’s no wonder certain extreme sites are attracting more and more followers. The one thing they do is offer certainty and comfort and provide fuel for the type of chip on the shoulder Nationalist mentality which is embarrassing to genuine, passionate believers like yourself.
Regards
#17 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2013 - 7:29 pm
This is all fair enough James, and it’s hard to argue with any of it. There is one slight problem though – it’s the internet.
The internet is basically one big, anarchist society. There are no rules, except where people choose to impose them on their own little part of the internet. The internet has been a hotbed for arguments and bad tempers for as long as I’ve been using it, and I dare say long before that as well. Go an a Manic Street Preachers website, say The Holy Bible is a rubbish album, and I’ll give you £100 if you don’t get a stream of abuse. Go onto a technology blog and say Apple are rubbish, then sit back and watch as the Apple fanbois tear you to pieces. Go onto Twitter and slag off Justin Bieber, then watch as thousands of young girls tell you they hope you die. Actually don’t bother with that last one – Limmy’s done it plenty of times.
Arguing with someone on a screen – even if you see their face and know their name – is so much easier than arguing with them in person, and that’s why it happens. Not only are you physically removed from them, but there are all sorts of social cues – sarcasm especially – that you don’t get online, which leads to all manner of misunderstandings, which only exacerbates the problem.
The thing is, all of this was fine, because everyone who took part in discussions on forums and message boards understood the “rules” (or lack thereof). But then journalists and other folk who would never have dreamed of debating with people on the internet came along, and assumed that the normal rules that apply “IRL” also applied online. Journalists in particular are not comfortable at suddenly having their views open to being challenged so vociferously and instantly, so naturally their reaction is to try and tame the internet, to try and make it more like the outside world with the rules and regulations that they’re so used to. But it’s never going to work, because the situations aren’t the same. It’s like expecting a late night radio phone-in show to have the same standard of discussion as a televised debate between two scientists, except unlike late night radio phone-in shows, there’s no one to vet the callers to get rid of the most bizarre callers.
But I don’t even think it’s as bad a problem as people think. At least in the indy debate, people are getting worked up over something worthwhile. Elsewhere, people are being told to “f*** off and die” for having the temerity to point out that it’s “you’re” rather than “your”. Although on second thoughts, that’s actually totally justified. This is the thing that gets me, because there seems to be this strange idea that bad tempered arguments are somehow unique to the independence debate. I actually don’t believe for a second that even most of the commentors on this article have not borne witness to equally bad tempered debates over other issues, such as abortion, tax evasion, gun control… I even seem to recall one commentor here in particular throwing around the term “rape apologist” like confetti when folk were arguing about Assange, and managing to insult an actual rape victim in the process. All very unfortunate, but that’s the internet for you.
#18 by Stuart Winton on April 11, 2013 - 8:34 pm
To an extent a fair analysis, but on the other hand it’s a bit like saying that because some people will always break the law then we shouldn’t have a police and a criminal justice system etc.
Surely your analysis is a bit defeatist and thus to an extent the same as saying that because the UK is the status quo then everyone should just accept it?
So although you’re correct in that it’s clearly hard to improve the civility of discourse in the internet age in particular, you must surely accept that some want to try to at least improve the stanard of the debate? On the other hand, you may just consider that kind of thing acceptable. Indeed, although I don’t, on the other hand it’s because a lot of people do that I don’t buy this ‘civic nationalism’ and ‘community spirit’ kind of thing, particularly because my real life experiences are probably a bit closer to what happens online than most people experience.
And of course one of the SNP’s most contentious pieces of legislation is intended to improve the level of civility and discussion both in the particular context of football grounds and in the wider environment of the internet, so presumably you don’t really agree with the ethos of that legislation because, er, shit happens?
#19 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2013 - 11:14 pm
“To an extent a fair analysis, but on the other hand it’s a bit like saying that because some people will always break the law then we shouldn’t have a police and a criminal justice system etc.”
Well, it depends what laws you’re talking about. If you’re talking about attempts to use the justice system to stop people doing things like taking drugs or selling sex, then you’re right – there are certain things where it’s futile trying to stop people doing things they want to do. You could probably argue there are parallels in that sense.
But here’s the thing. I’m not saying the internet is a free-for-all where people are entitled to say absolutely whatever they want. Of course there is a certain level of decency that needs to be maintained. But there’s a vast difference between an angry debate, and someone actually saying things which would get them in trouble with the law in real life. There are things I could say to you right now which you could then report to the police, and I’d rightly get in trouble for saying them. But things like “traitor”, “quisling” and whatever else it is that unionists find so abhorrent are not among them. And that’s because I could say those things to your face, and if you complained to the police they would tell you to wise up.
And besides, my overriding point is that this is how the WHOLE INTERNET is, not our specific little piece of it. Indy debates don’t get heated because of something unique to one of the sides in the independence debate – they get heated because they’re being conducted on the internet, and because it’s an issue that many people have very, very strong feelings about.
The whole Cybernats meme is simply a case of trying to use the nature of online indy debates to paint a picture of indy supporters being unreasonable people, drooling at the mouth, smashing their keyboards with rage, while the innocent, defenceless unionists just sit there being attacked. It’s utter, utter rubbish. Show me a debate on an issue which people are passionate about being conducted online which doesn’t turn angry, and I’ll vote No in 2014.
#20 by Stuart Winton on April 12, 2013 - 4:30 pm
Well indeed everyone adopts different behavioural norms, and the norms deemed subject to the law of the land (and thus agreed upon via some kind of democratic consensus, however crude) also vary between jurisdictions and over time.
So it’s no surprise that we disagree about such things, but surely the essential point about James’s post is how the wider consensus as regards the online discourse impacts on the debate in general terms, and ultimately the vote in 2014.
Thus although my current intention is to abstain in 2014, in general terms I agree with James and Douglas McLellan above, even though broadly speaking they’re on your side.
One example closer to real life than the internet – I tend to think Johann Lamont is overly abrasive and too ad hominem at FMQs, but of course Alex Salmond tend to rise to the bait and goes into his ranting and raving mode, replete with the ‘Bitter’ Together jibe and all that (which even Newsnet seems to have banned, and indeed I’m sure I once read yourself advising against).
But of course the corollary of Salmond’s reaction at FMQs and his similar demeanour elsewhere seems to be that he’s unpopular with some voters, particularly women.
So essentially it’s the same argument with what goes on on the internet, and while some clearly view the whole cybernat thing (using the term non-judgementally) as positive, others think it’s detrimental to the Yes campaign in the wider context.
Which of course really just brings us full circle and to the point that people debating such issues online tend NOT to be open to persuasion anyway, rendering the whole thing and the likes of this thread totally pointless! By the same token, to the extent that it does impinge onto the referendum debate in Scotland more generally, this thread also demonstrates that those participating won’t agree on its impact there either. But I suppose it all gives us something to do!
#21 by Stuart Winton on April 12, 2013 - 8:48 pm
Meant to say as well, Doug, indeed you’re correct that police wouldn’t normally be interested in the use of the words quisling and traitor per se, but again surely the point is the use of such words in the wider context of the debate rather than whether their use might constitute a criminal offence.
Thus while terms like quisling, traitor and ‘anti-Scottish’ aimed at anyone as much as questioning the SNP and/or independence might appeal to a certain online demographic coalescing around some websites, Facebook pages etc, I doubt if the average voter on the street is happy with the use of such terms, even though they might be minded to vote Yes. And like myself such stuff possibly won’t change anyone’s mind one way or the other, but clearly the point that James, Douglas et al are making is that it certainly doesn’t help. Again, I think even Newsnet Scotland has banned the use of the q- and t-words.
On the other hand, in the almost hermetically-sealed discourse evident on sites like WoS and Newsnet (the latter to a lesser extent now, because may of its former denizens seem to have decamped to WoS) such an approach is of course deemed more acceptable, but perhaps the self-evident groupthink and confirmation bias and that sort of thing is closing their minds to how it all might impact on voters more generally.
Of course, you/they might be right and such an approach will help galvanise the Yes vote, and myself, James and Douglas wrong, but if it does then in my opinion if it’s reflective of a future independent Scotland it doesn’t seem particularly civic or community spirited, or whatever.
#22 by Mel Spence on April 11, 2013 - 9:26 pm
Doug
Bing an old git and having been around the net almost since its inception, there is a great deal in your post that I agree with. But…. The net was in many respects the last home of the wild and free, because the sub set of society that used the net, the “internet people”, abided by the unwritten rule that the normal rules of the physical world, didn’t apply in our domain.
That was perfectly fine and dandy as long as our domain remained our domain. However, the rest of civil society now wants to use the net, for business, for politics, and for all the other facets of their daily lives. As a result our cosy “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” consensus no longer applies. The Lord MacAlpine episode, and the numerous criminal convictions for face book numpties really should be ample proof of that.
Folk are still free to tweet whatever they like about whoever they like, but, they need to be aware that the laws of the physical world apply.
I’m not dissing partisan politics, these are big, important ideas that are being debated. They merit a committed, passionate and fiercely partisan discourse. Just don’t say anything on the net, that you wouldn’t say in the street.
#23 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2013 - 7:29 pm
The tl;dr version: what you’re basically asking for is a complete overhaul of how discourse takes place on the internet. It’s simply never going to happen, and that’s not because of Cybernats, and it’s not even because of Unionists calling Alex Salmond a fat Nazi dictator. It’s because it’s the internet.
#24 by Ian Lowe on April 12, 2013 - 8:23 am
Yes, Yes, and a hundred times more Yes – I have been involved in a few campaigns (mostly around religion in schools, so you can see how well that’s going… 🙁 ) and every single one falls into this trap eventually.
Sooner or later, someone who perceives themselves as reasonable and moderate, and all the others on the same side is too extreme, carping, offensive and shrill… basically turns on their own.
Witness the whole arc of “I’m an atheist, but Richard Dawkins isn’t helping our (my version of our) cause” on the net – something which has, unfortunately, almost completely robbed the “new atheists” campaigns of any chance they had to effect real change.
What we have here is a an almost perfect analog for that – Stuart now believes that the real problem is that all those other nat bloggers are just being too nasty to the poor old better together lot, and if w would all be nice, everything would be okay.
Debate on the internet does not work like that, because only some of human society works like that. some people are debaters, moved by argument, some people are tribal, moved by being wound up against an enemy… and to win this we need both. What we do NOT need is these two groups turning on each other.
#25 by Stuart on April 11, 2013 - 8:00 pm
I take your point Doug, but that still doesn’t explain why there is more vitrial coming from Indy supporters compared to unionists.
The fact that there is now a debate on twitter about how bad this blog is for shutting down debate is an example- it’s all Indy supporters, who don’t seem to understand the rule- “don’t talk pish in the comments section”.
#26 by Colin on April 11, 2013 - 9:29 pm
Eh because there is vastly more indy campaigners who use social media than the unionist counterpart. Indy campaigners more likely to use social media as they feel underrepresented by MSM etc, plenty evidence of this.
#27 by CW on April 11, 2013 - 10:13 pm
Actually, I’m pretty certain that there was a recent study at Strathclyde University that analysed online political discussions about Scotland and found out that the opposite was true. Sadly I can’t find a link. Nevertheless, there is a case to be made that the debate as it exists online has developed a vicious edge, and as a probable ‘yes’ voter I often wince at some of the remarks I see posted from people on this side of the debate online. I don’t think that arguing over who is worse helps much. We’ve all had our own experiences of abusive behaviour, and we all have our own idea of what that means. Debates around sectarianism in Scotland show the potential cynicism and bankruptcy in arguing over which side is worse. I do think that senior political figures bandying about words like ‘cybernat’ and accusing one side of operating a big secret strategy to harass the opposition doesn’t help. It also doesn’t help to hear tedious phrases that circulate online like ‘Bitter Together’ repeated in parliament. Do any of us have a reasonable solution to how we might govern the internet? No, me neither. What I do know is that there is too much hate in the debate. We all have to live together no matter the result, and a lot of people need to learn how to take a deep breath.
#28 by Robert Blake on April 11, 2013 - 10:46 pm
You remember correctly, it is referred to here
http://jenniferdempsie.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/negative-cyber-politics-is-problem-for.html
” Dr Mark Shephard of Strathclyde University last month hosted a discussion in the House of Commons – Discourse on Scottish Independence – Politicians versus Publics. Dr Shephard is in early stages of investigating social media comments on the Scottish independence debate to explore the nature of posts and their possible effects on behaviour.
The findings, based on analysis of online comments under articles on independence, show the vast majority of posts are anti-SNP/independence and anti-Salmond rather than anti-English/anti-union.
In terms of language, too, comments about the SNP and independence are much more vitriolic than about the union and UK.”
#29 by Duncan Hothersall on April 12, 2013 - 9:12 am
I’d be interested in seeing the final research, if it’s available, because what you link to there is actually a blog from one side of the debate linking to *preliminary* findings which suit its argument.
Do we know if the research has actually been finished, so we can see the real results rather than the spin?
#30 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2013 - 10:38 pm
One person’s vitriol is another person’s robust defence. You see indy supporters posting abuse, I see them sticking up for themselves in the one medium they feel they get their voices heard (I mean in general, not in this specific instance – I’ve been watching stuff I recorded at the weekend all evening so I have no idea what folk have said about this article).
But the thing is, you don’t take my point. Your post can be summed up thus: “yeah yeah, it happens on both sides but the nats are still worse”. Go join a debate on abortion and watch as both sides claim the other is worse.
And if we must play “who’s worse?” answer me this: which pro-indy elected politicians have accused their opposite numbers of being fascists, accused Westminster of “not being democratic in the conventional sense”, and compared David Cameron to various dictators? Oh, and let’s not forget using the rape of a 14 year old girl to score a petty political point.
The No campaign are fond of trying to paint a picture of Alex Salmond sending out orders to his little army of Cybernats. Well if anyone is guilty of leading by example, let us look no further than Anas Sarwar, Ian Davidson and George Foulkes. Oh, and Blair McDougall, who used Scotland Tonight last night to make several unsubstantiated claims – something you’ll not see his opposite number Blair Jenkins doing.
#31 by Stuart on April 12, 2013 - 1:13 am
I’m happy to be proven wrong on this, and on most things actually. Maybe it’s because when I read blogs/social media I tend to be reading pro Indy stuff (given I am pro Indy). But the first response to my post just sums it up- it’s a tone thing for me, it’s not hard to be polite AND robust.
#32 by Doug Daniel on April 12, 2013 - 10:51 am
I think the clue is in the fact you tend to be reading pro-indy stuff, which probably explains why you’re seeing more vitriol from yessers. If you spent a few weeks immersing yourself in pro-union blogs, you might suddenly realise there’s just as much vitriol coming from their side.
I think perhaps people confuse volume with voracity. Perhaps there are fewer unionist nutters, but they tend to say worse things. And are there fewer of them because there is something about unionism which makes people inherently less susceptible to attacking folk of the opposite mindset, or is it simply that there are fewer of them?
Finally, even if there really is more bad temperedness from pro-indy folk, I suspect it’s simply because they’re the advocates of change in the debate. After all, when was the last time protesters marched across Edinburgh to say “keep doing this thing which already happens”?
#33 by Colin on April 11, 2013 - 9:04 pm
Agree with most of this, but I dont see how things are going to change.
One aspect I’d take issue with:
”The broad Yes side still spend too long getting down and dirty with the minutiae of policy, and all that nitty-gritty risks distracting from The Vision Thing. Whatever SNP policy may be, an independent Scotland won’t necessarily stay in NATO, or keep the pound, or go genuinely 100% renewable, or be a socialist paradise or a tax haven.”
Its not broad yes spending too long on this – its the media who are going after SNP policy and spinning it into big controversial stories, then the yes side, naturally, has to respond.
#34 by Indy on April 11, 2013 - 9:10 pm
Agree with Doug – the internet is like that and it’s possibly worse here because Scots argue for fun. Think about it – how many times have you sat in the pub with friends arguing about something completely ridiculous and saying things you don’t believe in the slightest just for the sake of argument – we all do it. And we can say terrible things but in that context you know it is not real, it’s just part of the game of arguing. Put it down in black and white though and it looks terrible.
#35 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2013 - 11:18 pm
“how many times have you sat in the pub with friends arguing about something completely ridiculous and saying things you don’t believe in the slightest just for the sake of argument – we all do it “
No we don’t.
(Ahem…)