by Rab Bruce’s Spider

The recent article on language snobbery which was published on this blog site contained reference to the fact that words can change meaning over time. Are we seeing an example of that in today’s Scottish media?

In his book, "Through the Looking Glass", Lewis Carrol had his character Humpty Dumpty tell Alice that, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

Since Nicola Sturgeon admitted that the word "Nationalism" is problematic, the Scottish media and Unionist politicians have had a field day proclaiming how evil nationalism is. Putting aside the hypocrisy of some of those politicians, are we witnessing a change in the meaning of this word?

The association, of course, is with the Nazis who proclaimed themselves National Socialists, with the emphasis very much on Nationalist. In much the same way that the Nazis altered the meaning of the swastika, which used to be a good luck symbol and still is in parts of Asia, they have tarnished the meaning of "Nationalist" and "Nationalism".

Of course, what those who wish to denigrate Scottish Nationalism conveniently forget is that most nations have a majority of citizens who are nationalists in so far as they believe that their country should govern itself. Individuals such as Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi were nationalists, yet are also dismissed by those who seek to portray all nationalists as violent and evil.

So what does the word actually mean? Is a Nationalist someone who simply believes that the citizens within a nation should be allowed to determine that nation’s political makeup, or is a Nationalist someone who believes that their nation is superior to all others and should be able to impose its will, by force if necessary, on those who disagree?

Dictionaries are not a great deal of help. For example, Merriam-Webster defines a Nationalist as "someone who believes in nationalism", which doesn’t make things much clearer. Its second definition is:

"a political Party or grouping which advocates national independence or strong national government".

Take your pick as to which you think applies to the SNP. It also depends on what you mean by the term "Strong national government". Again, images of Right Wing authoritarianism leap to mind, and don’t forget that Theresa May made great play of being strong and Stable during the General Election campaign.

So the word can mean whatever you want it to mean. The problem in Scotland is that the media are pushing their version of its meaning. For example, the BBC described the Charlottesville neo-Nazis as "White Nationalists". Now, this may be technically correct since American Nationalism is one of their core beliefs, but it is a rather narrow definition. News reporters choose their words carefully, and many in the pro-independence camp believe that this description was deliberately used in order to further tarnish the term "Nationalist" and so imply that anyone supporting Scottish independence is, essentially, a Nazi.

This may be an extreme reaction to the reporting, but there can be little doubt that the media and Unionist politicians are working hard to alter the meaning of this word. Words have power precisely because they are the tools through which we express ideas and persuade people to our point of view. The media has a great deal of influence, and politicians have demonstrated time and time again that repeating a claim often enough will make some people believe it, whether or not the claim is true.

It is certainly no coincidence that Unionist MPs in the House of Commons constantly refer to the SNP as the "Scottish Nationalist Party" rather than the "Scottish National Party". They know full well what they are saying because they wish to associate the Party with the more negative connotations of the word.

But if the perceived meanings of "Nationalist" and "Nationalism" are changing, this leads to the intriguing possibility that the word "National" might also be tarnished. This would certainly create problems for several charities, including such estimable organisations as the RNLI & RNIB, not to mention the National Lottery and the National Health service.

But, getting back to Nationalist, there can be little doubt that the media are succeeding in creating the impression that anyone who describes themselves as a Nationalist is someone who believes in violence and hatred. The facts behind the Yes movement do not support this, but facts have very little to do with human perception when it comes to politics. Donald Trump has shown that people will believe whatever he says, even if he flatly contradicts what he said only moments earlier. Indeed, the Washington Post has run an article claiming that the number of false claims Trump has made now exceeds 1,000, yet his supporters are unwavering in their devotion to him.

So, if the media are attempting to alter the meaning of Nationalist, what can we do about it?

One option would be to choose an alternative name which Yessers could use as their primary description of themselves. "Yessers" is one example, with "Independista" and "Normalist" other, less frequently used, alternatives. But the problem here is that the SNP remain the main political force for independence and, unless the name of the Party is changed, "Nationalist" will remain very visible. Also, we should not forget that changing the Party name would be seen as an admission that the unionists were right all along and that all Nationalists are wicked and divisive.

The other option is to attempt to reclaim the word. This can be done, but it is not easy. "Gay" certainly has a different meaning to what it meant in the 1940s, and "CyberNat" is often claimed as a badge of pride by online Yessers. The problem is that, whatever Yessers do on social media will not counteract the mainstream media onslaught.

All we can probably do is keep demonstrating, through words and actions, that the Unionist definition is wrong when it comes to describing Scottish Nationalism. We won’t persuade the British Nationalists who don’t even recognise their own brand of nationalism as being nationalism at all, but we might be able to persuade those who remain open-minded. So let’s point out the Unionist hypocrisy but please don’t respond to abusive comments in kind. That only helps the Unionist agenda.

The main thing we must remember, though, is that, while words remain important, this whole debate is intended to distract us from the underlying issue. Whatever we call ourselves, or whatever the media call us, this does not alter the fundamental principle that a nation should govern itself. Because they have no real answer to this, Unionists are focusing on the negative inferences of the word "Nationalist" in order to denigrate the entire movement. By associating it with violent nationalism, they seek to paint the Yes movement as inherently violent. The best way we can reclaim the word is to demonstrate, time and time again, that it is our definition which is most accurate. British Nationalism may be xenophobic at heart, but Scottish Nationalism needs to keep proving that it is possible to be proud of one’s country and its achievements without hating anyone else.