Alex Salmond: a well-versed politician or how to divide and conquer. When I put aside other issues. One of the things that impresses me about Alex Salmond is how well read he is and how well-versed in history. You can see it in his speeches, peppered with Scots words, poetry, and reference to historical events. It’s very impressive. It pulls people in. More importantly it’s a great mechanism to tie his identity, and that of his party to the history, culture, and people of the land. This can be seen in his use of ‘Team Scotland’, the ‘sovereign will of the Scottish people’. It’s emotive stuff, especially when tied further to historical events such as Bannockburn. In many cases these references, usually to battles against the English, are veiled, and thinly referenced. This hides their dual purpose, further cementing the relationship of him and the SNP to Scotland, it’s history, it’s culture, and it’s past relationship with England. The second purpose is to divide. We have a couple of things here that need to be split up, so we can take a better look at them. The first is the effect of this tying to Scottish history and culture (identity if you will). This is a classic political tool, thought unusually it’s a tool of the right, rather than explicitly the left. Though if you think about some European countries, what started as socialism or communism ended very differently, but I’m not drawing that comparison here, it just serves as an example that needs to be pointed out for completeness. The effect of this tying to Scottish identity, is that once you have support, you are able to frame all debate as being Scotland vs. other. We see this regularly employed, such that arguments against policy, or any other issue, can be framed as an attack on the nation, on the Scottish culture, history and values (as nebulous as that is). He capitalises on this further, with another effective political tool. By creating vague statements, that cannot be attacked directly, it amplifies any criticism to seem that the other side, as well as attacking Scotland, are making vague and empty criticisms. This also creates a situation where is able to deny encouraging people into certain acts, by leaving sufficient space for an unanswered question, people fill it themselves, with deeds, or their own values. No substance and nothing that can be traced back to a promise, or a call to action. It works, you can see it in people, when they see him or others in the SNP attacked, it becomes much more an attack on the person. It’s not even just the SNP, and the individual, your whole nation and identity is being attacked as well. Which leads to the second aspect, division. You can only frame a debate this way, by creating ‘other’. This is employed to good use by the SNP in general, but Alex Salmond especially. After tying his and the SNPs identity to Scotland, and then couching the opposition as other, it instantly creates a divide. You’re with us or against us. If you are not on Team Scotland, you’re against Team Scotland (sports is a good example of the same effect writ small). This is used, to target a specific group London and Westminster. I find London odd, because there are lots of lovely Londoners who have never done anything to anyone. However, this is a proxy for two things, the financial centre in London (comprised of companies from many different places), and Westminster (with politicians in many places). But we now have a tangible target. Nothing vague here, and it’s an easy one to use. For two reasons, one no one likes Westminster politicians, and too it exploits class issues to tackle both Westminster and the city. People who have more (privilege, money). After a long period of economic discomfort, and where people haven’t felt represented (this is more complex than is made out, maybe another time), this speaks to them again. Again we see the tying of the SNP cause to people using something vague (fairer society, social reform, welfare), as in not specified how it would be better, just that it will be better if you believe in it. So that again, attacks on that are attacks on the person, their values and the identity. At the same time, allowing people to vent their frustration, exploiting old feelings, as well as more recent ones to put them against the other. So if you’re not supporting the SNP and Alex Salmond, you’re against Scottish culture, values (vaguely defined), and the individuals themselves. So every debate deepens the divide. The more people push back, the bigger the chasm, and the stronger the emotion. Now there is more going on, than just this tool. But it’s worth noting the damage it does, and where else this is used. The damage is that people no longer can see criticism of the SNP and Alex Salmond, without feeling personally affronted; that you’re attacking their belief system and values; their heritage and culture. This is of course a false dichotomy. It’s perfectly possible to be against the SNP and Alex Salmond and want constitutional change, preservation of history, and building of culture; welfare reform and reduction in inequality. These things are not mutually exclusive. But unless we unpick the motivation and methods of the tools being used by politicians, we will be beholden to them. With emotions being used to silence dissent and debate. Facts are no use, because the attack is to the country, not the issue. And that’s why we have seen a failure to change the debate. So where else is this used. I mention earlier that this is a tool of the right. We can look to the Conservatives (don’t spit please), for examples here. Thatcher was very, very good at this, Britain’s identity and the need for reform (for greatness to come again to Britain), was used as the basis of her election, and part of her continuing period in office. Despite that it was built at the expense of many people. More recently UKIP have been exploiting dissatisfaction amongst people, and using the national identity and in this case the other are immigrants. It’s effective, these three things of dissatisfaction, national identity, and other. Going a little further back, we can look to Italy (not my strong area of politics) and the rise and success of Burlusconi. Again on a platform of making a country great, tying to national identity and history, and making his opponents other. You target him, you target the country. Why don’t you want the country to be great? Of course we can also go back to the countries involved in the Second World War. Now I said before, I don’t want to draw comparisons, as I think it’s unfair (so I’m being a little disingenuous in bringing it up again). But again, we can see the same tactics being used in a number of countries. The reason people have bad associations with Nationalism, is because of this. But Salmond has clearly got the rule-book from the nationalist parties of history (and today), and is using it for the same ends. I’m not prejudging his intentions with this, you could argue this is all for the greater good (the greater good), but he’s too well-versed and read to not be employing this knowingly. My difficulty is, that this is a divisive method, it turns people against others and stifles debate. It’s employed on both sides, but in this referendum, with it’s polarised Yes/No, the Team Scotland (or Forza Scozia if Silvio had his way) movement is favoured, and it leaves anybody not supporting it feeling that they are betraying their country, or values.
Posted on: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 00:14:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015