Concern that the mainstream media were ignoring them has helped nationalists reach out to young people on social media.
Concern that the mainstream media were ignoring them has helped nationalists reach out to young people on social media
The Herald has now come out in support of Scottish independence.
Whether it is a sign of things to come, or simply a clever move to up its circulation during the most important period in Scottish history for 300 years, the move seemed a significant one.
If nothing else, it disproves the widely held nationalist belief that the mainstream press are uniformly against them.
From ham-fisted coverage of Mark Carney’s currency speech to Andrew Marr pompously informing the first minister of Scotland that the country would struggle to join the EU, even outlets normally trusted by the Scottish left have become viewed as a weapon in the unionist camp’s war against independence.
But despite these concerns over media bias, support for independence has grown remarkably over the past few months, with a recent poll showing that a swing of just two per cent would be enough for a Yes Vote.
During the recent SNP conference in Aberdeen, Alex Salmond highlighted one of the differences between the two campaigns:
“The people are coming towards us. Political public meetings are being revived. Halls have been crowded… Last month the BBC finally discovered this grassroots campaign and tried to cover both sides of the debate. Their problem was that the No campaign struggled to find them any grassroots group to film – or even a single grassroot.”
The jibe hurts Better Together because it is true. No one has taken a lawnmower to the Unionist grassroots campaign; there was none growing to begin with.
And while the No campaign has wheeled out figures like Lord Robertson to make threats of cataclysm, Yes has side-stepped what it sees as the media’s deafness and attempted to meet the people of Scotland directly.
These town hall meetings – springing up across Scotland – are combined with a constant nationalist presence across social media.
Online platforms like Wings Over Scotland and Bella Caledonia are churning out well-written, heavily biased content to big audiences. Between them, these two have a bigger Twitter presence than Better Together. Yes has double that again.
These places provide a stage for Yes to refute unionist claims, and amplify their mistakes. Going on Twitter can feel like being back in the SNP conference.
When pro-union groups make a similar move it does not gather the same traction. Within hours of its launch, No Borders – a kind of unionist rival to the National Collective pro-Yes cultural group – was mired in controversy.
In fact critics questioned whether a group funded by a London-based, Conservative-donating millionaire (and coordinated by a London-based PR firm) could be considered either grassroots or Scottish at all.
Part of Better Together’s problem lies in its nature – it is much harder for a three-party coalition to offer a clear alternative to independence.
They may now have come together to form the Axis of Devo – but theirs is not a clear message that can be translated into 140 characters and spread across the internet.
Yes are particularly popular among young people and with 16 and 17 year olds awarded the vote for the first time in British history (around 100,000 have already registered), the internet is key to reaching them.
This is a problem for Better Together because it looks like the debate is becoming a battle between Yes – using modern communications to promise the future – and Better Together, promising more of the same, using the media of old.
Now none of this means Yes will or should win.
Better Together is still ahead in the polls and there are no guarantees the youth vote will swing it. Anyone who has ever seen a teenager on ketamine will know better than to conflate youth with energy.
But staying ahead in the polls should not be the only reason for Better Together to engage with the grassroots more – a vote for the union will mean very little if the public are voting because of the clear holes in the Yes camp’s message. A win driven by negatives will be no win at all.
So the nationalists may have been slightly paranoid in thinking the media was against them – and it may be too soon to start thinking of the online campaign as some sort of electronic indyfada.
But paranoid or not, it was this concern that drove energy into social media and helped them reach out to young people – something political parties across the spectrum have struggled with for years.
This rising support now seems to have brought the Herald on board, and there are claims that the Scottish Sun may have plans to follow suit.
In this sense the nationalists should not be angry with the media for ignoring them, but thankful. It was the press that set the cybernats free.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
116 Responses to “Scottish nationalists shouldn’t be angry with the media for ignoring them”
Alec
Please, please, please let this be the day “unhinged” and “rant” cease to have any meaning beyond “[an unhinged rant at] something I don’t like”. If Stewpot doesn’t like people saying howwid things about him on the Internet he should: a) stop doing the same himself; b) go back to video games journalism and get out of politics because he (and you) clearly don’t have the emotional maturity to be here.
I forgot to say that Campbell and his groupies have a plain loathing of the powerless and embarrassing power-worship (see his recent Twot that the Welsh FM was of no consequence).
Even in the terms of my original comment, it was not just that. Nor was it a minor slip… it was a fuck-up which undermined his whole point as happens often, and which – being a narcissist – he was chronically incapable of admitting to. As that real proper journalist, David Leask said, anyone claiming to be a monitor of Scottish journalism should make sure they know what Scottish journalism is.
Congratulations, Campbell must be well pleased with you, his little helper. Maybe you could shout him the cost of a train ticket to Liverpool to make clear his views on Hillsborough.
Has the taxman been in touch with him yet about the status of Wangs?
I am quite calm and happy. It’s you who’s screaming and shouting in an effort to shut down a thread he’s not in control of. It’s you who’s launched into a spitefulness bordering on clinical psychopathy at mere mention of negative feelings towards your hero (whilst bizarrely thinking you are exercising your – as opposed to seeking to deny others – right to free speech).
~alec
Spammo Twatbury
Mind your blood pressure, there.
Alec
Oh, dear, that sounds like a personal insult. I’m not one for invoking ad hominem as if it’s inherently poor argument because it’s not. When, as you do, it’s all that’s used, it is bad argument from someone who has nothing to add except sniping.
People disagree with you, deal with it. And, when I say “deal with it”, I don’t mean throw a temper tantrum like a spoiled middle-class twerp.
Do you think Stewpot’s views on Hillsborough are: a) acceptable; b) abhorrent?
Do you think his generally expressed views on pro-Union Scots and Irish people are: a) acceptable; b) abhorrent.
Do you think his residing in Bath and not being minded to move (having spent his working life outside of Scotland, it’s a bit questionable to describe it as a return) to Scotland in the event of a YES vote are: a) acceptable; b) plainly two-faced and opportunistic?
If any of your responses are a), you are a bit of a nutter. If you accept b), then your thuggish attempts to shut down discussion of it makes sense… you realize just what a liability he is, and how the SNP and YEScotland’s judgment in citing him is thrown into doubt.
~alec
Kryten2k35
Oh there’s all manner of differences between nazis and Scottish nationalists, but it hits a nerve and plays the right notes.
Regarding the CyberNats, they’re as bad as Nazis. If you disagree or want a No vote, you’re against democracy and freedom. The nazis were arseholes, and so are the CyberNats you find online. That’s not to say all Independence supporters are like these people. These “CyberNats” are a group of their own, and it’s fun to poke at them and call them Nazis.
Alec
I certainly do think they are political sectarians and operating from a position which no democrat should endorse, but the Nazi thing is too far.
~alec