Feeding the Monster
There are websites on which I can hardly bear to read the comments section because of the level of vitriol and hatred which radiates from the screen. Fortunately, although I have occasionally had to block individual comments on this site or threaten to do so, the vast majority of contributors have been civilised and made interesting points.
One of the things which has struck me as a matter of great concern in relation to the debate about Scottish Independence as we head into the last few days before the referendum, is how angry and unpleasant some of that debate has been.
It would be facile, and just plain unfair, to attribute all of this to one side. There have been plenty of campaigners on both sides who have managed to be civilised and put forward constructive and positive arguments, some of which deserve to be addressed whichever way the vote goes.
Nevertheless, I have noticed that the tone of the debate has often been nasty, and although the majority is not guilty of this on either side, and some voices for a "No" vote have been just as bad, the sheer nastiness of some of the people calling for a "Yes" is most unpleasant and does not redound to the credit of their case. For example, some of this week's comment thread on the "Political Betting" website which is normally one of the most interesting political reads have been dominated to a most unpleasant extent by gratuitous insults hurled between two or three Scot Nats and almost everyone else on the site.
Just to give an example of one of the least offensive exchanges, one of the "Yes" supporters started a particular round of insults with the words
"You're not going to successfully claim the moral high ground with the Orange Order, the EDL, and the BNP going for No."
When someone turned this one back with the words
"Nationalist parties are always pretty vile, shame you can't see that"
the person who had started this sort of comparison in the first place got most upset and started talking about "smears" and how "absolutely ridiculous" it was to "equate" the SNP with a fascist group, without the least apparent hint of irony or apparent recognition that exactly the same guilt by association tactic which he or she had initiated in the first place had merely been turned around and aimed at the person who started it.
Mind you, that one was mild compared with all the accusations of being a "turnip", cretin, or anti-semite on what is usually a civilised and friendly blog.
Not that it is just online that there has been thuggish behaviour. One "Yes" supporter was given 80 hours of public service by a court for throwing an egg, and Murdo Fraser, someone not usually known for eagerness to jump to the defence of Labour MPs describes here some of the abusive behaviour directed at Jim Murphy MP.
Neither Murdo Fraser not I are suggesting that all or even a majority of "Yes" supporters like this sort of thing, nor that all the "No" supporters are angels. But the level of nastiness is worrying, and regardless of the result of the vote in a fortnight's time, does not bode well for Scotland, or for Scotland's relationship, either as a foreign country or part of the same one, with the rest of the UK.
The anger which is very evident amoung some Scottish Nationalists is very similar to the anger which is often displayed by some - not all of the supporters of UKIP, two parties which have a great deal more in common than either wishes to admit.
Yes, of course many of their policies and some of the philosophy are radically different, but IMHO the Scot Nats are tapping into a set of grievances against London among those who identify primarily with Scotland which have some uncanny parallels with the passions and resentments that UKIP is tapping into against both Brussels and the present establishment in London among those who identify primarily with Britain or England.
Graeme Archer has a very thought provoking piece on Conservative Home here which discusses the nationalist anger being stoked up. He argues that neither Nigel Farage nor Douglas Carswell is a monster,
"but they're feeding one. The same one. And the rest of us are going to have to live with the consequences, in what’s left of our nation of nations, when they’re done."
Read the article "Suppose, nevertheless, that there are such things as monsters."
I've a horrible feeling that Graeme has a point.
One of the things which has struck me as a matter of great concern in relation to the debate about Scottish Independence as we head into the last few days before the referendum, is how angry and unpleasant some of that debate has been.
It would be facile, and just plain unfair, to attribute all of this to one side. There have been plenty of campaigners on both sides who have managed to be civilised and put forward constructive and positive arguments, some of which deserve to be addressed whichever way the vote goes.
Nevertheless, I have noticed that the tone of the debate has often been nasty, and although the majority is not guilty of this on either side, and some voices for a "No" vote have been just as bad, the sheer nastiness of some of the people calling for a "Yes" is most unpleasant and does not redound to the credit of their case. For example, some of this week's comment thread on the "Political Betting" website which is normally one of the most interesting political reads have been dominated to a most unpleasant extent by gratuitous insults hurled between two or three Scot Nats and almost everyone else on the site.
Just to give an example of one of the least offensive exchanges, one of the "Yes" supporters started a particular round of insults with the words
"You're not going to successfully claim the moral high ground with the Orange Order, the EDL, and the BNP going for No."
When someone turned this one back with the words
"Nationalist parties are always pretty vile, shame you can't see that"
the person who had started this sort of comparison in the first place got most upset and started talking about "smears" and how "absolutely ridiculous" it was to "equate" the SNP with a fascist group, without the least apparent hint of irony or apparent recognition that exactly the same guilt by association tactic which he or she had initiated in the first place had merely been turned around and aimed at the person who started it.
Mind you, that one was mild compared with all the accusations of being a "turnip", cretin, or anti-semite on what is usually a civilised and friendly blog.
Not that it is just online that there has been thuggish behaviour. One "Yes" supporter was given 80 hours of public service by a court for throwing an egg, and Murdo Fraser, someone not usually known for eagerness to jump to the defence of Labour MPs describes here some of the abusive behaviour directed at Jim Murphy MP.
Neither Murdo Fraser not I are suggesting that all or even a majority of "Yes" supporters like this sort of thing, nor that all the "No" supporters are angels. But the level of nastiness is worrying, and regardless of the result of the vote in a fortnight's time, does not bode well for Scotland, or for Scotland's relationship, either as a foreign country or part of the same one, with the rest of the UK.
The anger which is very evident amoung some Scottish Nationalists is very similar to the anger which is often displayed by some - not all of the supporters of UKIP, two parties which have a great deal more in common than either wishes to admit.
Yes, of course many of their policies and some of the philosophy are radically different, but IMHO the Scot Nats are tapping into a set of grievances against London among those who identify primarily with Scotland which have some uncanny parallels with the passions and resentments that UKIP is tapping into against both Brussels and the present establishment in London among those who identify primarily with Britain or England.
Graeme Archer has a very thought provoking piece on Conservative Home here which discusses the nationalist anger being stoked up. He argues that neither Nigel Farage nor Douglas Carswell is a monster,
"but they're feeding one. The same one. And the rest of us are going to have to live with the consequences, in what’s left of our nation of nations, when they’re done."
Read the article "Suppose, nevertheless, that there are such things as monsters."
I've a horrible feeling that Graeme has a point.
Comments