The Scottish independence referendum is bringing to prominence a whole new area of special use of language. Here are some words I’m getting fed up with.
Afraid – see ‘Feart’
Bias – allegation made, usually without any firm evidence, about the news coverage of the BBC in the belief that ‘No’ campaigners are given an easy ride and ‘Yes’ campaigners are unfairly given a hard time. The allegation often means no more than the views of a favoured politician are subjected to legitimate challenge. The same accusation is also made about Scottish TV and (sometimes with more justification) about the printed media, Scottish and English.
Bullying – any mention of potentially negative consequences of independence by UK politicians, even if backed up by evidence and even if the politicians concerned are Scottish.
Feart – Scots for ‘afraid.’ Glib characterisation by many who want independence about those who don’t, whatever their reasons.
Negative – any reason given against independence.
Project Fear – ‘Yes’ code for ‘No’ campaign, whatever arguments it advances.
Scaremongering – another code word for any mention of potentially negative consequences of independence even if backed up by evidence, although not confined to statements by UK politicians.
Unionist – literally, a definition of anyone who wants to maintain the union (any sort of union) of the UK. Often used to imply a right wing or reactionary viewpoint because of its association with the ‘Conservative and Unionist’ party, much less so by any association with Ulster Unionism.
Westminster – as in ‘parties’ or ‘government.’ Shorthand for United Kingdom parties or government. Used to imply a whole range of characteristics – indifference, irrelevance, hostility, distance, separation and otherness – although ‘Westminster’ government is also UK and therefore Scottish government. Sometimes shortened to ‘WM.’
Other contributions by sharp-eyed readers to the lexicon are welcome and will be added with due acknowledgement. Comments that do no more than point out that I have a particular point of view are likely to remain unpublished, especially if abusive.