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
Yes, I’ve been linking to it and his other blogs.
The difficulty in debating with lying liars like you is that your use of English in ways which would have made George Orwell gasp. It is not a lie to quote someone’s own words.
Stewpot said those fucking lies he did about Hillsborough, and to continue to say it’s me who’s lying by linked to them is perverted.
Do you or do you not believe the Hillsborough 96 were the sole architects of their own deaths? Yes or no.
If yes, then you either are merely wrong, or moral dreck. If no, you are at least a half-way decent moral creature. Yet it remains that Stewpot thinks the 96 were to blame… I’m of the view this is because he’s a revolting person.
You had two options:
a) Say it was irrelevant and separate to his views on Scottish independence (even though he links to his blogs from each other).
b) Try to bluster your way out by denying the undeniable fact of his having blamed the 96 and them alone for their deaths.
It’s quite plain that you know just how indefensible his position is and how, if the SNP and YEScotland were sensible political parties/movements and not evangelical cults, it would tarnish their reputation at having endorsed this revolting person.
So you went for b). Problem is, in addition to whole filing cabinets of his disgusting comments from print media, the Internet if full of the rest… from mocking sex-abuse victims to wishing old soldiers dead to laughing about 11/9 to pissing on the graves of the 96 just as surely as the Sun pissed on them at the time.
You come across as a besotted gangster’s moll. This might work for the already converted, but it’s not going to get non-bigotted YES voters (of which there are plenty) or undecideds on your side… on the simple account of their not being filthy scum.
~alec
Alec
Nope. Come back when you have a less asinine response.
~alec
Charles Addison
Tut, tut manners! And you just agreed that neither yes or the No vote is intrinsically democratic. It’s in the referendum process. Which IS kind of what I wrote.
Perhaps, if you spent less time trying to flame people down and actually read the postings, you arrogant put downs would be replaced with something approaching debate.
And for the record, I go where I CHOSE.
Alec
I could “kind of” write that you just admitted to deep-drying live kittens, but it would have diddily squat with what you actually wrote. And what I actually wrote was plainly not what you reduced it to.
Perhaps if you and Jeanne Tomlin started telling the truth (not least desisting with the bizarre Orwellian attempt to redefine a lie as accurately reporting someone’s stated views) this conversation would advance better, and you’d also get more people on your side..
How dare you tell me what to do!
~alec
Kryten2k35
Once pressed on the matter, I clarified who it meant. Just because you didn’t read that part, doesn’t give you the right to get pissy over it.