MY response to Kirsty Strickland’s suggestion of the slogan “a choice between two unions” (Take back control? Why we need a snappy slogan, February 2) is NO, certainly NOT! This would have little effect on non-supporters and may split supporters.
I’m in my mid-70s, have always been politically interested but not an activist and not a party member, until recently when I joined the SNP in disgust at Westminster behaviour.
I am convinced that independence, as it is called, is right for Scotland (I’d rather refer to a self-governing Scotland).
READ MORE: Why the independence movement needs a snappy slogan
The vast majority of our electorate, however, is not really politically aware (I know independence supporters are usually fairly aware of the facts, but I am referring mainly here to those who did not support independence last time).
In the majority these non-supporters are likely to be middle-income earners who have busy social and cultural and often charitable lives, or lower-income earners who are involved fully in the minutiae of how to ensure their families survive this week and this month.
Whichever they are, they have little time for politics, find it a nuisance but know that once in a while they have to vote. How that vote is placed is usually down to whichever slogan has caught their eye and seems to reverberate with them. They do not even look very far for evidence to support that slogan.
So yes, we need a slogan. One that reverberates with the vast majority of our non-supporters. It needs to communicate a simple message that will have some meaning to them. They don’t want to have to weigh up political consequences of different options. They don’t have the time to check them out. So it must relate immediately to their lives – difficult, as they have such different lives and needs.
However, Scots are regarded as canny. No matter how much or how little they have, they are keen to get the best out of it, and they like to control it. So, I want to offer a “slogan thought”. Brighter minds than mine will find the right words to use, and they must be able to be used in slightly different ways to answer a whole host of opposition barbs.
Some variation of: “Would you give your neighbour control of your family budget?” For example:
Which would you prefer?
1. Take back control of:
a. Your family budget?
b. Your spending decisions?
c. Yours and your children’s jobs?
d. Your relationship with your neighbours?
e. Who you decide to work with and who you decide to oppose?
2. Give your neighbour/friend full control over:
a. Your family budget?
b. Your spending decisions?
c. Yours and your children’s jobs?
d. Your relationship with your neighbours?
e. Who you decide to work with and who you decide to oppose?
A rough and ready idea, but I think with some polishing up it is far more likely to sway a large number of different groups and doesn’t cause division between voters of different parties; between socialist Leave voters and capitalist-leaning voters; between voters of different age groups, cultures or countries of origin. And it can be adjusted to answer almost any argument that the oppositions put forward.
I am not suggesting these should be used without back-up facts for those who want to investigate them, and all the work that has been done by the various organisations pushing for Scottish self-government will be required for those interested parties. However, if we cannot show that each of the above instances can be better served by self-government, I’d be very surprised.
Grace A White
Fife
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel