The Scottish independence movement has many enemies. These range from unionist politicians, through a deeply biased media, right up to and including far-right, jingoistic, empire loyalists. Many hold their own particular dangers to our movement which we ignore to our own detriment, but there is one which stands out above all others as the greatest danger of them all.
Ourselves.
I have been watching the behaviour of some Scots Nats both online and off, and there are many I see who are not only doing the Indy movement no favours, but for all they may be well-intentioned, are actually doing a great deal of harm.
Some of the responses I have seen to genuine concerns about independence have been utterly appalling. These range from abuse and profanities, ad hominem attacks, attempts to smear the person's character, and even thinly-veiled threats of violence.
One case in point; in a Facebook group I belong to, one person unsure about independence within the EU stated "Only if they promised not to go back into the EU." A Scots Nat answered "I bet he calls himself a supporter of Scottish independence. But it's no more a priority to him than Jacob Rees Mogg." The person who made that snide, childish comment - and I do hope they are reading this - appears to have forgotten the old truism about making assumptions. Never assume; because when you assume, you make an ass of u and me.
But not content with that, the selfsame person instead of addressing the concerns of another doubter, attempted to smear his character. The doubter happens to be an atheist and was posting in a secularist group, and the tack the Scots Nat took was to point out that one of the Facebook groups the doubter liked happened to be a Christian creationist one.
Both the above cases have one thing in common; they are an irrelevance to the broad church of the independence movement. It matters not if someone is pro or anti EU, or indeed what faith or none any Scots Nat may be, or indeed if they accept evolutionary biology or believe in the Biblical creation (and here's news for that person, I'm an atheist myself and have liked some creationist groups, purely to refute what those in them have say). What this person, purporting to be a Scots Nat did, was deplorable. He openly accused one person doubtful about independence of being a Tory, and then he attempted to smear the character of another doubter, and he did both in a public forum. I could actually go on about other insults and false accusations the same person posted, but needless to say, I found his behaviour shameful, to the point that if he ever sends me a Facebook friend request, I shall waste no time marking it as spam. I wish to have nothing to do with anyone who resorts to dirty pool.
But I see this all too often in online behaviour, and it has got to stop. Answering people who may doubt the independence argument with insults and abusive behaviour can only ever harm us. Just who do you think you are helping every time you call another Scot a "Quisling", "Uncle Tam", "Fifth Columnist", etc? Do you really think those and other insults are going to change their minds? Do you think that sort of behaviour is going to win others over to independence? I would suggest that it is more likely to do the exact opposite. Where someone is already a unionist, all you are going to achieve is causing them to dig their heels in even further. If they are a waverer, you risk driving them away from independence, and firmly into the unionist camp. If they are a unionist, name-calling is hardly going to change their minds.
I shall cite an example of what happened in reverse in 2014. In the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum, I went to a unionist Facebook group page, and there I found questions from an Irishman resident in Scotland, who said he was unsure which way to vote, and genuinely wanted to hear the unionist argument (he had likewise posted similar questions in a Yes group). Instead of receiving those answers, he was subjected to a disgusting tirade of abuse, which included being told "Fuck off back to your own country.", called "Paddy", "bog-trotter", "tattie-muncher", "thicko", "Fenian bastard" (with no proof that he was a Roman Catholic), accused of being an "IRA fellow-traveller" and a "terrorist", and several other smears. His reaction was predictable. He replied "Well thank you very much for making my mind up. If it's the opposite of people like you, I shall be proudly voting Yes."
Now, many of us can have a good laugh at the way the unionists shot themselves in the foot, or at the least feel the Irishman was justified. But consider that his questions were not answered. The unionists had merely assumed that their arguments were self-evident and decided instead of answering him to embark on a tirade of anti-Irish abuse. Many may say "Well, that's the unionists for you.", pointing to the fact that the unionist camp does attract far-right elements, but as long as we have people embarking in similar abuse of people asking genuine questions, you have to ask if we are all that different?
Indeed, when I put a post up about the behaviour of some Scots Nats, one friend, previously known to be a strong campaigner for independence, commented that it was stopping some from campaigning. It just so happens the lady in question is English. No matter how matter we like to deny it, there are still some anti-English elements within the independence movement, and that has definitely got to stop, and needs to be called out wherever any of us encounter it. I have seen anti-English comments from supposed Scots Nats who are keyboard warriors and some of whom have never gone on a march, done any canvassing, or stood on a stall. Compare that to my dear friend, who hails from Essex (you don't get much more English than that), and who has campaigned harder for independence than most of us, myself included. And let's up the ante, the woman concerned is disabled, relies on crutches to walk, but has never let that stop her. She puts many native-born Scots to shame, and those who voice anti-English comments are not fit to kiss her shoes.
Do not think either that our behaviour is not noticed nor played upon by the unionists and their establishment mouthpieces. Like many Scots Nats, I do believe the BBC are biased against the SNP and the wider independence movement in general, and I have noticed some very cynical behaviour on their part. On the BBC News website, whenever there is a positive story about Scotland, they will bury that story deep, and not open it up to Have Your Say, the website's comments section. But the moment there is a negative story about Scotland and / or the SNP / Indy movement, it immediately is made top story, and it is opened up for debate. This results in a number of arch-unionists making vitriolic posts about the SNP, the Indy movement, and even about Scotland in general. But worse than that, this provokes reactions from Scots Nats, answering the unionists in equally vitriolic fashion.
Do you see what is happening here? Since 2014, the UK media has tirelessly ran smear stories about the nasty "cybernats", while largely ignoring similar behaviour - and worse - from some unionists (I could actually relate incidents of actual violence from unionists - including some officially attached to Better Together - but two wrongs never make a right). Those who go to the BBC News website and become involved in this mud-slinging are merely giving the media more ammunition against us, and that can only further hurt us as a movement. You can be sure the BBC and other media outlets will rarely, if ever, report online abuse from unionists, but will be only too quick to do so from Scots Nats.
But it is not only online we need to watch behaviour from some elements within the movement. Out on marches, we often encounter unionists counter-protesting, as is their right to do so. I have heard and seen people deriding them publicly, shouting abuse at them - including profanities - and in some cases, getting right into their faces. Who do you reckon is going to come out worse in the media in any of those exchanges? I'll give you a clue; it will be no-one carrying a Union Flag. Okay, the incident in Dundee where one Scots Nat presented leader of A Force for Good, Archie McConnachie, with a packet of Daz washing powder for his filthy Union Flag jacket was hilarious, but it is rarely we see good-humoured reactions like that.
There is much I could say about the furore over Siol nan Gaidheal and their "Tory Scum Out" banner, but I think it is enough to say that All Under One Banner insisting that they do not carry it on marches I believe was the right move. Strange as it may seem, there are actually some Conservative supporters who are sold on the idea of independence, and in carrying that banner, Siol were actually acting against the spirit of "All" Under One Banner. It is worth noting however that some of those who were previously bleating about that banner are now moaning about Siol even taking part in AUOB marches now. And here's the thing, some of them may have a point. For all their fine words, and having members who share the views of civic nationalism most of us hold, there are parts of the Siol website which still hold very disturbing wording about English people who have come to live in Scotland, including calling them "White Settlers", and claiming that they could skew any vote towards independence. Indeed they do, Siol - most of the English people I know who live here vote either SNP or Green, and are stalwart supporters of an independent Scotland. I frankly think we have much more to worry about from unionist Scots than pro-Indy English. It's time to lose all that anti-English rhetoric, guys.
I am far from perfect myself, and have been known to go off on one at unionists who there's no hope for at times. But even when I do, it is usually in places that can only be seen by friends and not by the general public, and that's where we need to make a distinction.
Imagine if there was to be a Scottish Independence Referendum soon, and you were an undecided voter. If you went online and saw all the vitriolic and childish comments from some Scots Nats, or heard them reacting angrily to ask yourself what you would think of them. Would you then vote Yes, if you thought this was the future of Scotland? If you thought those people spoke for the Yes campaign? I think it's far more likely you would be all the more likely to vote No.
Robert Burns once wrote, "Oh, wad some pow'r, the giftie gie us, tae see oorseels as ithers see us." Today we have that power, and every word and gesture we make can be whisked around the world in seconds. Make no mistake that every word we say, every action we take is observed by others, seen by the media, and reported upon. So, think on, every time you make a comment, online or off, towards a waverer, or indeed a unionist, on how others are going to see that.and just how that is going to reflect on the independence movement as a whole.
And it is no use dismissing actions which put us in a bad light as the acts of agents provocateur. Sure, they exist, I have seen them, as a former peace march steward I am pretty good at sniffing such out. But by equal measure, I have also seen people whom I know to be long-term Scots Nat activists come out with comments which put the movement in a poor light. Therefore, to bury our heads in the sand and claim it is all down to unionists infiltrating the movement can only be detrimental to our cause.
There's no easy answer, but here is what I suggest;
Be patient and courteous at all times. When someone asks you a question about independence, answer it politely, calmly, and honestly.
Always listen carefully to what doubters say. Some people have genuine concerns about independence, and we can only answer them if we listen to them, and know exactly what they are asking. Never assume to know what they are saying and / or try to jump in with an answer before they are finished. Just so happens you may well get it wrong, and offend the other party in doing so.
Try not to get into heated arguments. In most arguments with diehard unionists, you will find yourself going round in circles. Just say, "Well I don't agree with you, and I'm sorry you feel like that.", or similar, then walk away. With those who are determinedly against independence, continuing to argue with them is pointless.
Likewise, when others get heated, again, walk away. Don't get angry and go off on one at them. Let them get angry and go off on one at you. It will only put them in a bad light.
When you encounter counter-protesters on marches, either ignore them, or better still, smile at them, wave to them and wish them a "Good day". Again, this will get their backs up and cause them to lose the place. And who knows? You may actually convince some of them to think "Hey, these Nats aren't so bad after all."
In her epic poem, The Cleansing of the Knife, Naomi Mitchison wrote "We need the serpent's cunning to deal with London." Mitchison wrote that in 1947, and it is all the more true today. As a movement we are far from perfect, and neither should we ever claim to be so. But we must at least appear to be squeaky clean, to give the unionists, their media mouthpieces, and the London establishment as little ammunition against us as possible.
To do any otherwise is doing the unionists job for them.
I have been watching the behaviour of some Scots Nats both online and off, and there are many I see who are not only doing the Indy movement no favours, but for all they may be well-intentioned, are actually doing a great deal of harm.
Some of the responses I have seen to genuine concerns about independence have been utterly appalling. These range from abuse and profanities, ad hominem attacks, attempts to smear the person's character, and even thinly-veiled threats of violence.
One case in point; in a Facebook group I belong to, one person unsure about independence within the EU stated "Only if they promised not to go back into the EU." A Scots Nat answered "I bet he calls himself a supporter of Scottish independence. But it's no more a priority to him than Jacob Rees Mogg." The person who made that snide, childish comment - and I do hope they are reading this - appears to have forgotten the old truism about making assumptions. Never assume; because when you assume, you make an ass of u and me.
But not content with that, the selfsame person instead of addressing the concerns of another doubter, attempted to smear his character. The doubter happens to be an atheist and was posting in a secularist group, and the tack the Scots Nat took was to point out that one of the Facebook groups the doubter liked happened to be a Christian creationist one.
Both the above cases have one thing in common; they are an irrelevance to the broad church of the independence movement. It matters not if someone is pro or anti EU, or indeed what faith or none any Scots Nat may be, or indeed if they accept evolutionary biology or believe in the Biblical creation (and here's news for that person, I'm an atheist myself and have liked some creationist groups, purely to refute what those in them have say). What this person, purporting to be a Scots Nat did, was deplorable. He openly accused one person doubtful about independence of being a Tory, and then he attempted to smear the character of another doubter, and he did both in a public forum. I could actually go on about other insults and false accusations the same person posted, but needless to say, I found his behaviour shameful, to the point that if he ever sends me a Facebook friend request, I shall waste no time marking it as spam. I wish to have nothing to do with anyone who resorts to dirty pool.
But I see this all too often in online behaviour, and it has got to stop. Answering people who may doubt the independence argument with insults and abusive behaviour can only ever harm us. Just who do you think you are helping every time you call another Scot a "Quisling", "Uncle Tam", "Fifth Columnist", etc? Do you really think those and other insults are going to change their minds? Do you think that sort of behaviour is going to win others over to independence? I would suggest that it is more likely to do the exact opposite. Where someone is already a unionist, all you are going to achieve is causing them to dig their heels in even further. If they are a waverer, you risk driving them away from independence, and firmly into the unionist camp. If they are a unionist, name-calling is hardly going to change their minds.
I shall cite an example of what happened in reverse in 2014. In the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum, I went to a unionist Facebook group page, and there I found questions from an Irishman resident in Scotland, who said he was unsure which way to vote, and genuinely wanted to hear the unionist argument (he had likewise posted similar questions in a Yes group). Instead of receiving those answers, he was subjected to a disgusting tirade of abuse, which included being told "Fuck off back to your own country.", called "Paddy", "bog-trotter", "tattie-muncher", "thicko", "Fenian bastard" (with no proof that he was a Roman Catholic), accused of being an "IRA fellow-traveller" and a "terrorist", and several other smears. His reaction was predictable. He replied "Well thank you very much for making my mind up. If it's the opposite of people like you, I shall be proudly voting Yes."
Now, many of us can have a good laugh at the way the unionists shot themselves in the foot, or at the least feel the Irishman was justified. But consider that his questions were not answered. The unionists had merely assumed that their arguments were self-evident and decided instead of answering him to embark on a tirade of anti-Irish abuse. Many may say "Well, that's the unionists for you.", pointing to the fact that the unionist camp does attract far-right elements, but as long as we have people embarking in similar abuse of people asking genuine questions, you have to ask if we are all that different?
Indeed, when I put a post up about the behaviour of some Scots Nats, one friend, previously known to be a strong campaigner for independence, commented that it was stopping some from campaigning. It just so happens the lady in question is English. No matter how matter we like to deny it, there are still some anti-English elements within the independence movement, and that has definitely got to stop, and needs to be called out wherever any of us encounter it. I have seen anti-English comments from supposed Scots Nats who are keyboard warriors and some of whom have never gone on a march, done any canvassing, or stood on a stall. Compare that to my dear friend, who hails from Essex (you don't get much more English than that), and who has campaigned harder for independence than most of us, myself included. And let's up the ante, the woman concerned is disabled, relies on crutches to walk, but has never let that stop her. She puts many native-born Scots to shame, and those who voice anti-English comments are not fit to kiss her shoes.
Do not think either that our behaviour is not noticed nor played upon by the unionists and their establishment mouthpieces. Like many Scots Nats, I do believe the BBC are biased against the SNP and the wider independence movement in general, and I have noticed some very cynical behaviour on their part. On the BBC News website, whenever there is a positive story about Scotland, they will bury that story deep, and not open it up to Have Your Say, the website's comments section. But the moment there is a negative story about Scotland and / or the SNP / Indy movement, it immediately is made top story, and it is opened up for debate. This results in a number of arch-unionists making vitriolic posts about the SNP, the Indy movement, and even about Scotland in general. But worse than that, this provokes reactions from Scots Nats, answering the unionists in equally vitriolic fashion.
Do you see what is happening here? Since 2014, the UK media has tirelessly ran smear stories about the nasty "cybernats", while largely ignoring similar behaviour - and worse - from some unionists (I could actually relate incidents of actual violence from unionists - including some officially attached to Better Together - but two wrongs never make a right). Those who go to the BBC News website and become involved in this mud-slinging are merely giving the media more ammunition against us, and that can only further hurt us as a movement. You can be sure the BBC and other media outlets will rarely, if ever, report online abuse from unionists, but will be only too quick to do so from Scots Nats.
But it is not only online we need to watch behaviour from some elements within the movement. Out on marches, we often encounter unionists counter-protesting, as is their right to do so. I have heard and seen people deriding them publicly, shouting abuse at them - including profanities - and in some cases, getting right into their faces. Who do you reckon is going to come out worse in the media in any of those exchanges? I'll give you a clue; it will be no-one carrying a Union Flag. Okay, the incident in Dundee where one Scots Nat presented leader of A Force for Good, Archie McConnachie, with a packet of Daz washing powder for his filthy Union Flag jacket was hilarious, but it is rarely we see good-humoured reactions like that.
There is much I could say about the furore over Siol nan Gaidheal and their "Tory Scum Out" banner, but I think it is enough to say that All Under One Banner insisting that they do not carry it on marches I believe was the right move. Strange as it may seem, there are actually some Conservative supporters who are sold on the idea of independence, and in carrying that banner, Siol were actually acting against the spirit of "All" Under One Banner. It is worth noting however that some of those who were previously bleating about that banner are now moaning about Siol even taking part in AUOB marches now. And here's the thing, some of them may have a point. For all their fine words, and having members who share the views of civic nationalism most of us hold, there are parts of the Siol website which still hold very disturbing wording about English people who have come to live in Scotland, including calling them "White Settlers", and claiming that they could skew any vote towards independence. Indeed they do, Siol - most of the English people I know who live here vote either SNP or Green, and are stalwart supporters of an independent Scotland. I frankly think we have much more to worry about from unionist Scots than pro-Indy English. It's time to lose all that anti-English rhetoric, guys.
I am far from perfect myself, and have been known to go off on one at unionists who there's no hope for at times. But even when I do, it is usually in places that can only be seen by friends and not by the general public, and that's where we need to make a distinction.
Imagine if there was to be a Scottish Independence Referendum soon, and you were an undecided voter. If you went online and saw all the vitriolic and childish comments from some Scots Nats, or heard them reacting angrily to ask yourself what you would think of them. Would you then vote Yes, if you thought this was the future of Scotland? If you thought those people spoke for the Yes campaign? I think it's far more likely you would be all the more likely to vote No.
Robert Burns once wrote, "Oh, wad some pow'r, the giftie gie us, tae see oorseels as ithers see us." Today we have that power, and every word and gesture we make can be whisked around the world in seconds. Make no mistake that every word we say, every action we take is observed by others, seen by the media, and reported upon. So, think on, every time you make a comment, online or off, towards a waverer, or indeed a unionist, on how others are going to see that.and just how that is going to reflect on the independence movement as a whole.
And it is no use dismissing actions which put us in a bad light as the acts of agents provocateur. Sure, they exist, I have seen them, as a former peace march steward I am pretty good at sniffing such out. But by equal measure, I have also seen people whom I know to be long-term Scots Nat activists come out with comments which put the movement in a poor light. Therefore, to bury our heads in the sand and claim it is all down to unionists infiltrating the movement can only be detrimental to our cause.
There's no easy answer, but here is what I suggest;
Be patient and courteous at all times. When someone asks you a question about independence, answer it politely, calmly, and honestly.
Always listen carefully to what doubters say. Some people have genuine concerns about independence, and we can only answer them if we listen to them, and know exactly what they are asking. Never assume to know what they are saying and / or try to jump in with an answer before they are finished. Just so happens you may well get it wrong, and offend the other party in doing so.
Try not to get into heated arguments. In most arguments with diehard unionists, you will find yourself going round in circles. Just say, "Well I don't agree with you, and I'm sorry you feel like that.", or similar, then walk away. With those who are determinedly against independence, continuing to argue with them is pointless.
Likewise, when others get heated, again, walk away. Don't get angry and go off on one at them. Let them get angry and go off on one at you. It will only put them in a bad light.
When you encounter counter-protesters on marches, either ignore them, or better still, smile at them, wave to them and wish them a "Good day". Again, this will get their backs up and cause them to lose the place. And who knows? You may actually convince some of them to think "Hey, these Nats aren't so bad after all."
In her epic poem, The Cleansing of the Knife, Naomi Mitchison wrote "We need the serpent's cunning to deal with London." Mitchison wrote that in 1947, and it is all the more true today. As a movement we are far from perfect, and neither should we ever claim to be so. But we must at least appear to be squeaky clean, to give the unionists, their media mouthpieces, and the London establishment as little ammunition against us as possible.
To do any otherwise is doing the unionists job for them.
