Support Talking-up Scotland's work to counter the lies and get you the facts, daily, at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/checkout/help-talking-up-scotland-tell-truth-about-scotland/payment/nBQxjVzq/details

By stewartb

“Lots of us were persuadable, but if the knee jerk response to common sense questions is ‘you’re a unionist traitor, a scaremonger and no true Scot’, don’t be surprised if the questioner becomes sceptical about the inclusive, egalitarian, welcoming utopia independence activists swore we’d be living in once they were in charge”

At one level I’m bored by the likes of this from Ms Rowling and want to move on. But this wishing to occupy some sort of moral high ground grinds the gears!

I’m too busy enjoying a fine glass of red tonight to delve and compose personally so here is a question and response (unedited) to/from ChatGPT;

Question: ‘There is a point of view that the 2014 Scottish independence referendum triggered extreme, divisive inputs to the political discourse. What were the more extreme ones put forward by the ‘no’ side – from supporters of pro-Union Better Together campaign?

ChatGPT said (with my emphasis): ‘Yes, the 2014 Scottish independence referendum did provoke some extreme and divisive rhetoric from both sides, but the “No” side—represented primarily by the Better Together campaign—was particularly vocal in using certain lines of attack. While Better Together largely framed its argument around unity, economic stability, and risk aversion, some of its supporters resorted to more extreme and inflammatory rhetoric to try to convince voters to stay in the UK. Some of the more extreme and divisive arguments included:

Fear-Mongering About the Economy
“Economic Armageddon”: There were frequent warnings from senior political figures, including prominent figures from the Better Together campaign like Alistair Darling, about an economic disaster if Scotland voted to leave the Union. The campaign painted an apocalyptic picture of soaring unemployment, businesses fleeing Scotland, and rising prices, implying that Scotland would be economically crippled and a pariah state.

Pension Fear: The future of pensions in an independent Scotland was portrayed as precarious. Some on the No side made exaggerated claims that pensions would be at risk if Scotland voted to leave the UK.

Anti-Scottish Nationalism Rhetoric:
“Nationalist Extremism”: The rhetoric around Scottish nationalism often veered into the idea that those advocating for independence were being driven by a dangerous form of nationalism, akin to the far-right, xenophobic strains seen in other parts of Europe. This portrayed the independence movement as irrational or even hostile to diversity, with some Better Together figures suggesting that independence was a form of political extremism.

“You Don’t Speak for Us”: The idea that independence would divide Scottish people into “true Scots” and “traitors” was part of the narrative, accusing independence supporters of alienating those who felt a strong British identity or a connection to the Union. This division was used to stoke fear that Scotland would become less tolerant or even culturally isolated.

Scotland Would Become a “Poorer” and “Weaker” State
“Scotland Is Too Small”: There was a persistent argument that Scotland was economically and politically too small to survive as an independent country. This included exaggerated claims about Scotland being too dependent on the UK for trade, security, and social welfare. The idea of Scotland being a “wee country” and incapable of thriving without the UK was a common, patronizing trope used by some Unionists to disparage the idea of independence.

Defence and Security: Unionist figures like former Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested that Scotland would be exposed to security risks if it left the UK. A key part of this argument was that Scotland would be left without a full military capability and dependent on NATO or other powers for defense. Some of the language implied that Scotland would be left vulnerable and weak without the support of the UK’s military.

Divisive Language Around “Identity”
“Unpatriotic” Labeling: Supporters of the Union often went as far as labeling independence supporters as unpatriotic or disloyal to the British state. This rhetorical device sought to delegitimize the desire for independence by questioning the loyalty of those advocating for it, even suggesting that they were somehow less “British” or less deserving of the shared identity with the UK.

“Economic Parasites”: Another divisive element came from certain sectors of the pro-Union camp accusing the Scottish National Party (SNP) and independence supporters of being economically irresponsible or reliant on UK taxpayers. The suggestion was that Scotland was a “net drain” on the UK economy and couldn’t survive independently without being a “burden” to the rest of the UK.

Personal Attacks on Key Figures: Alex Salmond and the “Out-of-Touch” Leader: Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), was frequently attacked personally. He was portrayed by some as an authoritarian, power-hungry figure who would lead Scotland into disaster. Some Unionist campaigners also accused him of being manipulative or dishonest in his presentation of an independent Scotland’s future, often attacking his character rather than engaging in substantive debate.

Nicola Sturgeon’s Leadership: After the referendum, Sturgeon also faced some of these personal attacks, with critics painting her as a dangerous and divisive leader. She was often framed as a radical who was out of touch with the majority of Scots.

Claims of an “Unholy Alliance” Between the SNP and Other Political Extremes: Linking the SNP to Extremism: There were attempts by some Better Together figures to link the SNP’s independence agenda to broader political movements they deemed extreme, like Scottish far-left groups, or even broader international movements. This implied that support for independence was a form of political extremism, equating it with populism or even xenophobia.

Scotland’s Relationship with Europe: There was also a fear-based narrative that if Scotland became independent, it would have to choose between being isolated or tied too closely to the European Union. The latter was framed as a sort of ideological extremism or an unwanted allegiance with “foreign” powers, which played into anti-EU sentiment that was growing at the time (ahead of the Brexit referendum).

Exaggerated Cultural Backlash: Anti-English Sentiment: Some Unionists claimed that the independence movement fostered an “anti-English” sentiment among Scots, despite this being a minority view within the independence movement itself. This exaggerated portrayal framed the independence campaign as being fueled by hostility or even hatred toward England, which was further perpetuated by fringe elements within the Yes campaign but was not representative of the majority.

While these arguments were not universally accepted, they were part of the narrative pushed by the Better Together campaign and its supporters, creating a climate of fear, division, and mistrust. It became a contest not only over Scotland’s political future but also over identity, loyalty, and the perceived risks of breaking from a centuries-old political union.

To repeat, an unedited response!