Nomenclature Wars Part 2

Yesterday I provided evidence of how Irish Republicans are using words and language to, well, basically rewrite history. Today I’ll give you two more contemporary examples of the importance of words and language in modern political discourse and why pro-Union activists should pay more attention to their effect.

Imagine you are a Scot who is not politically committed and try to gauge your reaction (be it direct or subliminal) when reading the following:

1. a) “X/Y/Z is a British Unionist” or
b) “X/Y/Z is pro-Union”

2. a) “Alex Salmond is a pro-independence social democrat” or
b) “Alex Salmond is a nationalist separatist”

Remember, you are not politically committed, someone who has no firm opinion on the future constitutional status of Scotland.

If we want to present our argument in the most positive language possible, then I believe in both cases we should be using the latter definitions.

It is more than likely “X/Y/Z” is proud, as I am, to be a “British Unionist” but the effect on the neutral is more important and to be “pro” anything is almost always perceived as a positive (e.g. “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in the abortion debate) and if you are pro-Union then surely automatically you would also consider yourself “British” at least to some degree? By including “British” in the title however, you may (albeit perhaps only indirectly or subliminally) put off those people who would value the Scottish element of their identity higher that their British part. It may seem rather counter-intuitive but if those people still vote for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom, then really… who cares?

Similarly with Salmond. The term “pro-independence social democrat” conjures up a cosy, civic, Scandinavian type picture.

“Nationalist”? Well, in most political circles in the developed world, that would be a term of abuse to describe the loony far-right.
And if I say “separatist” what’s the first image coming to mind?
The Tamil Tigers? ETA? Chechnyan rebels?

Of course, Salmond has never murdered his opponents on account of their religion or national identity but as he believes in Scotland separating from the rest of the United Kingdom, then it’s not stretching the truth to describe him as a “separatist” is it?

In both cases, we are not telling lies, we are merely crafting the image in a potential supporter’s mind and in the fight (Struggle? Battle? War?) to preserve (Save? Develop? Improve?) our nation, word and language should be an integral part of our armoury.

*If you check the comments from yesterday’s post and also the discussion page of the Kingsmills Massacre, you will see that an attempt to include the victims’ names has once again been thwarted.

However, I’m pleased to report that there has been a positive development with this specific case.
The question of the selective naming or not of victims will now become a more centralised discussion on all affected articles in an attempt to reach a “general consensus” (i.e. not one directly solely by Republicans) on the matter. Sometimes persistence does pay off!