ONE of the hardest tasks in the Yes campaign was to get past the genuine fear that some older voters, particularly pensioners, had about voting Yes. Too many of them were on an information diet of fear and scaremongering from Better Together; force-fed Unionist spin by a biased establishment and a host of questionable reporting. And it worked. Analysis of the referendum vote revealed it was older voters who significantly voted No.
I wonder how pensioners in Scotland felt last week when the odious remarks from Alex Wild, research director at the Taxpayers Alliance (TPA), were aired at the Conservative Party conference. The research director of the TPA called on the Tory Government to cut pensioner benefits as soon as possible as many pensioners would either be dead or too senile to remember who cut their benefits by the time of the next election. What was even more disgusting than the completely cynical and morbid comments was the applause and laughter from Tory delegates that made up the audience.
I also wonder how pensioners in Scotland reacted to being told by Liam Fox, Conservative MP for North Somerset, that they would understand the need to cut their benefits. I have to question how understanding he would be if he was left to choose between heat for his home or food in his mouth, which is a sight the hard-working volunteers at the ever rising number of foodbanks see. I fail to see why our pensioners should have to be understanding. I am sure they understand that the problems this country is facing are down to politicians and bankers, and not down to them. I am not so sure they understand why this government leaves the poor and vulnerable in this society to bear the brunt of cruel policies to “fix the roof” of the country, while multinational corporations get away with dodging billions of pounds worth of tax.
For Liam Fox to tell pensioners that they “need to do what they know to be right” is a sickening guilt trip I cannot fathom. What would be right would be for this government to concentrate on tax avoidance, which costs this country up to £34 billion a year, as opposed to scapegoating our pensioners who are relying on benefits to sustain a basic level of comfort.
All through the referendum campaign, Better Together courted pensioners with one scare story after another. If it wasn’t claims about losing their bus passes, it was tales about losing their winter fuel allowances or flat-out lies about losing their state pensions altogether. Some of the most vulnerable citizens of our country were targeted with a never-ending stream of negativity, fear and lies.
They knew a significant proportion of pensioners didn’t have access to alternative sources of information, be that social media or even friends and family. And worst of all, Better Together knew the dangers of a No vote and of the inevitable cuts, not just to pensioners but to all families and individuals, regardless of whether Labour or the Tories formed the next UK Government.
In comparison, the Yes campaign relied on volunteers to get around the media bias. We had a variety of websites that could dissect a Better Together scare story quicker than the press could print it; we relied on many people with no political background chapping on doors and talking to their neighbours, and we relied on family members talking to one another about the positive vision for a Yes vote and independence.
However, that message didn’t get through to a significant sector of the electorate who had no alternatives to Better Together and the mainstream media. That is an issue that will need to be addressed before a future referendum.
We have to make sure that all of those who were swayed by Better Together have better access to alternative information. It helps that we now have a daily newspaper in favour of independence but we can’t rely on pensioners to switch allegiance from newspapers they may have bought all their lives – especially if they don’t know they have been, and are still being, misled.
I do not mention this to have a complete re-run of the referendum campaign, I do it to highlight the fact that the same tactics of Better Together and the establishment deployed during the referendum campaign are being applied here again; a patronising hope of pensioner ignorance.
The contrast between the Tory attacks on pensioner benefits and the SNP Scottish Government doing its best to protect pensioner incomes will have to be hammered home to older voters. Just recently Alex Neil MSP – the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioner’s Rights – highlighted at the Scottish Older People’s Assembly that the SNP Government would not scrap concessionary travel. He also expressed his concern that the Tory talk of rich pensioners was largely a myth and that many were relying on benefits to which they had contributed over long working lives. In the harsh reality of Austerity UK many pensioners are suffering, and if the Taxpayers' Alliance get their way, many more will have nothing but cuts and poverty to look forward to.
In the meantime, maybe those elderly voters will start to see through the threats as they realise they are certainly not better together as Tories openly joke about cutting their benefits because they will either be dead or too senile to notice come the next election.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here