Abuse and the case for independence

I often find myself in a dilemma on social media.

I see people abusing each other because of their point of view. Occasionally someone has a go at me. Usually it’s in relatively mild terms – I must hate Scotland/the SNP, I’m vile, I must be filled with bile, and so on. Once or twice it’s gone beyond what I regard as acceptable, as when a well-known cybernat asked rhetorically of me ‘Is this old fart still bumping his gums?’ In context a question like that might just about have oozed under the threshold as humourous but this is someone who frequently goes beyond the pale.

Of course, abuse is a relative term and remonstration at it sometimes produces the response ‘If you don’t like the heat get out of the kitchen.’ One person’s robust debate is another’s appalling bad taste and we all have our own boundaries. A useful rule of thumb is said to be the answer to the question ‘Would you say this to a person’s face?’ although sadly some of the low lifers who inhabit the web would. Others give the impression of being adolescents locked in their bedroom high on the power of being rude without sanction. Indeed, I saw a case once where someone rebuked a particularly obnoxious comment (not political) with ‘I know your mum and I’ll tell her if you don’t say sorry.’ The boy, for it was, immediately said sorry and deleted his original comment.

The mention of adolescents brings me to the trigger for this post – the youngest MP (ever?) Mhairi Black of the SNP. She’s not quite adolescent since she’s aged 20 and has a first class honours degree in politics from the University of Glasgow. So not stupid. But she has been indiscreet both politically and socially. I won’t detail how: those who know will be aware and the original material circulates endlessly on the web.

But, the thing is, she’s just made what has been hailed by many, and not just her fellow SNP MPs, as a very good maiden speech in the Commons. It certainly had eloquence and commitment and she was gracious to her Labour predecessor although I found the substance thin. The saddest thing for me was that listening to it on the radio I thought she sounded old before her time, a sort of tired West of Scotland hoarseness that lacked youthful vigour.

Some might regard that comment as itself abusive and there’s the dilemma. I would say that within the bounds of decency elected politicians (of any party) are fair game about their politics and about any burden of hypocrisy they carry. These are people who want to mould society to their own values and beliefs. If their views and the arguments they use to justify them are wrong they need to be countered, but not with easy insult.

I expect a hostile, albeit sad, reader with plenty of time to spare could scour this blog, not to mention Twitter and Facebook, to find where my comments have been unacceptable. I’ll help them (perhaps). The worst I can find recently are two examples.

One was when I called Alex Salmond ‘a self-deluded roly-poly pudding’ although it was in the context of a bizarre interview where his own self-perception was clearly that he bestrode Westminster like a colossus (my words but definitely his sentiment). His hubris needed taking down, even if it was only for the relatively modest numbers of readers of this blog. On the other hand, he is well known to keep his marriage very private and since Mrs S has no political profile I have no reason to comment on her (except, once, as the carrier of her husband’s saltire that he waved contrary to the rules at Wimbledon last year).

The other was when I used the collective noun ‘clowns’ about the mainly new group of SNP MPs. That was perhaps at the boundaries of my own instincts of what is right. Some of them, as they start to gain a profile and speak in public, can sound articulate and intelligent. But the context for my clowns remark was their collective early behaviour in the Commons, something their applause of Mhairi Black’s maiden speech yesterday suggests they may not all have got over. Nicola Sturgeon has demanded respect for them and for the SNP from the government but she needs to remember that respect is a two-way street.

Still, articulacy and intelligence are not enough. Politicians also need to be right. And where they’re not they need to be countered.

For that reason I find the most effective contributions on both sides of the separation/independence divide in Scotland are those that actually mount a rational argument and do so in moderate terms. Appropriate humour can help too. It’s easy to get angry, and I do myself, but while abuse might make people feel good it’s certainly not going to convince anyone with an opposite point of view. And that is what we need to do: convince those who are open to argument that separation is not a good idea. There are many reasons why that is the case. Let’s use them all.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Abuse and the case for independence

  1. Peter Lusby Taylor says:

    Roger, an excellent couple of posts on the difficulty of engaging in debate without treading over the threshold into the pointless deconstruction of the other. Kevin Hague also wrote very well on this last week. One of the difficulties for nationalism as an ‘ism’ is that it, by nature, excludes. In order to maintain a sense of boundary and to enclose those who identify with it, it almost has to vilify, even in a subtle way, those excluded. The fox hunting vote was a case in point where despite the rationality of bringing English law into line with Scottish they chose an offensive route simply to show the Tories that they have a slender majority. Why? Don’t they know it? Is this grown up behaviour? No, it is simply tribal. At the very least Nationalism like any form of club membership has to provide some kind of emotional connection, sense of safety, or reward to the tribe, cult or group. The easiest route is to create this is to be competitive with or openly superior to the outsider, to listen and accept the point of view of the outsider is to be inclusive and the ‘ism’ then falls away. All that has been fought for dies, so the loss for nationalists is very great indeed.
    Genuine debate seems to me to be in these still fraught circumstances to be almost impossible. I, like many others have noted, have been shocked over and again when I tried to engage in rational discussion with probably recently converted SNP/Independence supporters how seldom they could accept a simple statement of facts without fighting back with some alternative ‘fact’ which was altogether unrelated to the argument but was intended to point out the failings of either ‘Tories’, ‘Westminster’ or Brit-Nats. But it packed an emotional punch.
    Your blog, chokkablog and Lily of St Leonards and several others are invaluable in providing reasoned argument with humour but without rancour.
    I suppose the challenge is to not rise to the bait, and not to act or speak simply out of annoyance with their point of view. Kind regards

    Liked by 1 person

    • Roger White says:

      Thank you for those kind and (I would say wouldn’t I?!) perceptive comments. Some nationalists won’t agree of course, like the one I’m engaged with at the moment on Twitter who is not answering any of my points and immediately changes to another each time. Not everyone’s like that of course. But as you say, these things make debate very difficult.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s