THE weaponisation of public debate and language used in politics continues unabated.
The cavalier nature of the UK Tories, as they try to avoid being held to account for their record, and the increasingly hysterical tone of the right-wing press, are major drivers.
But so are fundamental economic changes in capitalism and the evolution of media and social media.
This trajectory can be identified in Scotland and a public landscape where, across a range of issues, the tone has not only got more siren and intolerant but is filled with outlandish, over-stated and deeply problematic voices.
The conventional take in Scotland is to talk about this in relation to specific cases – such as the toxification of the trans debate and to a lesser extent the independence question. But this misses a wider canvas of changes going on in Scotland, the UK and further afield which means we have not seen the last of this.
A contemporary example is the Airbnb/self-catering accommodation issue which has brought forth heat, passion and toxicity. This debate stems from Scottish Government legislation to regulate the burgeoning market in self-catering, over-tourism, city neighbourhoods being turned into tourist zones, and health and safety common standards.
This situation also touches on the rise of rentier capitalism and a growing section of the population using property to provide an income or supplement their pension.
There is a highly funded Airbnb lobbying campaign and the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers has embraced outlandish assertions such as saying regulation amounts to discrimination against women because of their prevalence in the sector.
And if that were not enough, some voices are using the weaponised language of parts of public debate claiming that this initiative could lead to “pogroms” across Scotland.
A section of elite Scotland also feels its privileges are being threatened.
Magnus Linklater, the former Scotsman and former Times Scotland editor, took a brave stand as a potential martyr on self-catering accommodation, stating it was unlikely he would complete the forms by the October 1 deadline.
Linklater asked: “Is this really what the Scottish Government wants? Our form has yet to be completed. I may be about to join the criminal class.”
The properties in question, it turns out, were not even his but holiday cottages owned by a trust (full disclosure – we rent two bedrooms in our home, having filled out all the forms issued by Dumfries and Galloway Council).
There are two levels to this. There is the Scottish landscape where the Airbnb issue sees commonalities with the trans rights debate. In both (whatever their rights and wrongs) the Scottish Government has enacted legislation and not in the most enlightened way, misjudging complexities and concerns.
In the first, the concerns of women; in the second adopting a nationwide response when Airbnb and over-tourism affects different areas in different ways (such as cities as opposed to rural areas).
Added to this has been the hyper-partisan, OTT nature of part of the debate as people feel their interests are threatened and disrespected. Some of this in both debates has some justification. But at the same time, outlandish language allows some people to just publicly make things up.
For example, the woman who made the “pogroms” remark claimed the crisis of rented housing was due to post-Thatcher “right to buy” councils breaking their word and not “rebuilding replacements”. In reality, councils were legally and fiscally prevented from doing so.
Similarly, across the trans debate there are numerous misrepresentations from both sides including false allegations of transphobia and assertions that some supportive of trans and women’s rights do not believe in “women’s sex-based rights.”
Besides, this is a deeper set of changes about the economy, capitalism and internet. The UK has experienced 13 years of Tory austerity and the hollowing out of public services while simultaneously a whole swathe of the workforce is living precariously with few rights and short-term contracts.
The collusion between media, including broadcasting, and social media is creating a more coarse, exploitative culture and tone in TV programmes that are legitimating more heightened, outlandish voices on the internet. And we have not seen the last of this.
An element of the above is the sudden reification of voices once judged reactionary and conservative into “national treasures”. Hence Holyrood magazine, in its annual awards last week named as “MSP of the Year” the SNP’s Fergus Ewing. The rationale was his increased profile as a back-bench MSP after a long ministerial career.
Never mind that his new-found independence is railing against the Greens as “wine bar revolutionaries” and going on about the incestuous influence of “the woke” in Daily Mail-style language.
Or, that as a minister, Ewing just was not very good at effecting change, being supportive of landed and vested interests. But because he is giving voice to a hyper-conservativism on social issues all is forgiven, including by many who used to criticise Fergus and Winnie Ewing on LGBT rights.
Another dimension to these debates is that they are often waged within a peculiar Scottish insularity and exceptionalism without detailed knowledge of wider global debates. Scotland is not unique in having a “cultural war” about trans rights which has left various constituencies of radicalised opinions and wounds which continue to fester.
A similar pattern can be identified in the Airbnb/self-catering issue. If you believed the likes of Linklater then there is something specifically Scottish in wanting to regulate this sector which others would describe as “the nanny state”, “the anti-business Nats” and wanting to “destroy tourism”.
The reality is that this is a worldwide issue.
All over the world countries and cities are legislating and regulating on this. New York has just passed legislation. Previously Amsterdam, Tokyo, Sydney and many other cities and territories have acted, with many having heated debates when standing up to the Airbnb corporate behemoth.
This is the world we live in and we need to understand the currents we are swimming in. We need to know how to react, given the powerful forces of reaction, economic change, the role of media and social media, and critically, how capitalism and the forces of capital accumulate and extract wealth.
In all this we must understand and not give up our agency and common humanity which recognise the dynamics of power. First, there is the evolution of capitalism in recent decades, dividing us, increasing inequality and insecurity, while venerating the self-appointed masters of the universe, leading the rise of unapologetic bloviators.
Second, related to this has been the impact of the internet, social media and invasive media. This has corroded the collective commons of the public sphere and what William Mackenzie called “the community of communicators” with the interface between social media, print media and broadcast media contributing to a diminishing of our humanity.
We are now invited in a range of TV programmes and platforms to judge, devalue and view as lesser humans our fellow citizens because of superficial or contrived factors. The degeneration of Channel 4 and its role in exploitative programming far removed from its original pioneering remit is but one talisman in this.
Finally, we need to define a common language and values across the widest possible constituency while standing firm against those peddling hatred and disinformation. There are at least two aspects of this.
One is finding an agreed moral code for public discourse across the West after the retreat of God, the question George Orwell wrestled with in his later writing which he described as “how can we be influenced by the values of Christianity after Christianity”?
A second is noting the common values many of us share. As one US politician stated, we must resist the mindset of “because you don’t agree with me, there’s something wrong with you”. This is relevant across all the divides – Brexit, Trump, the UK Tories, Scottish independence, trans rights, Airbnb.
We have to remember who gains from such an approach – namely diminishing us as a public, and empowering reaction and capital.
