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.
116 Responses to “Scottish nationalists shouldn’t be angry with the media for ignoring them”
Alec
First of all, I didn’t say that… that’s your argumentum credulosum and question begging.
Secondly, this is the Internet 2014, so of course the mechanism is there for what I did say to happen: just like Stewpot did when Ben Fogle DARED to express a view on the referendum, and brought down all the Cybernats on that lovely man’s Twitter feed; or when Roseanna Cunningham and Stewpot disseminated home contact details for a senior Army officer who’d DARED canvass for a NO vote (if I were one of the former’s constituents in need of help, I’d refuse to have any dealings with her as she plainly cannot be trusted not to share personal details).
Thirdly, it’s the same posters appearing and then disappearing after one comment like a drive-by shooting.
Fourthly, try the member for Kirkcaldy.
Wipe that smile off your face.
~alec
Jeanne Tomlin
On the contrary, you applied it to all ‘cybernats’ which includes me.
Jim Fraser
Ah, Alec, if only the Englishes I know who are voting Yes were obedient! Then there would be no need for Alex Salmond to use his dastardly mind-control techniques to subdue and dupe them. (Honestly, I’ve heard that he finds that very tiring.) I think it was ICM who found those respondents, my love. However, if they would give me the addresses, I’d like to send them all a bunch of flowers for their open minded open-heartedness. And 28% is quite a healthy number in the circumstances, don’t you think? It cheered me up, no end!
Jim p.s. re. my ‘admission’: with subbing skills like that you really should be writing the article headlines, not slumming it down here in the comments section with us lot. Pip, pip!
Alec
I have no idea in what shape or form that
relates to anything I said. I suspect you’re
trying to be satirical but in fact you’re coming across as deranged.
Alec
I have no idea why you and Twatface are continuing to defend Stewpot. You plainly know naff all about his comments, or you do know and are operating from a position no democrat should in trying to shut-down criticism.
Like many a bully and narcissist, he just cannot take it like he dishes it… but he doesn’t do it himself. He’s a rank rank coward who rellies on wideboys and besotted fans like you and Twatface to defend him.
You’re another pompous prig who doesn’t know what a personal attack is, or thinks it’s okay when you do it (re “CyberBrits” whilst getting all prissy over “Cybernat”).
If Stewpot were sticking to games journalism, I couldn’t care less about his wretched views on Hillsborough not to mention his claiming to have laughed himself silly on 11/9. I’d see him for what he was… a loser troll.
But he’s not. He’s a professional blogger (as in deriving an income, of unclear tax status) and is an official voice for the SNP and YEScotland. Now, like the harlot down the ages, you and they are trying to wriggle-out of the responsibilities of power once you’ve enjoyed all its benefits.
Repeat after me, “wa wa wa! Nasty man not letting us play!”… don’t come back until you’ve grown a pair.
~alec