What’s the word?

I have always eschewed the use of terms such as “traitor” or “quisling” when referring to those who stand in fervent opposition to the restoration of Scotland’s independence. Indeed, I have frequently chided my fellow Yes supporters for resorting to such inflammatory language. But this leaves us with a problem.

There are people who, while claiming to be “proud Scots” or even “real Scots” (whatever that means) nonetheless strive to do actual harm to Scotland. They actively try to deter inward investment. They seek to dilute the Scottish brand. They denigrate Scotland’s public services and physical infrastructure. They undermine public confidence in our democratic institutions. The worst of them constantly portray Scotland as a place fraught with crisis and chaos; a ‘failed state’; some kind of third-world hell-hole.

The shorthand for all of this is the sub-text underlying all Unionist rhetoric and British Nationalist propaganda – TOO WEE! TOO POOR! TOO STUPID!

The problem is this. If, as I am wont to insist, we should not call such people “traitors”, what should we call them? What would be an appropriate alternative epithet for someone whose purpose is to sabotage Scotland’s economy; destroy our public services; eliminate our distinctive political culture; and obliterate our national identity?


donate with paypal

donate with pingit

30 thoughts on “What’s the word?

  1. I can think of a few words. None are particularly pretty though. I guess the truth is that some of these morons genuinely believe that they are working in the interests of Scotland because they are working in the interests of the union. After all the retards will tell us, Scotland voted to remain part of the union and must surely respect the wishes of the country as a whole, by which they mean the so called United Kingdom. Other facts and circumstances are irrelevant to these cretins.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. How about Proud Butts?

    Proud Butts that should be depicted/caricatured with Union Jacks emblazoned on their proud, fleshy cheeks. I think this is a fair, sensible compromise in the current context.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. We should be more robust in our language for traitors and quislings. When did they ever offer us polite opposition? They are quick to put the verbal boot in.

    They are the enemy within, and therefore more dangerous.

    Call them for what they are, it’s time we stopped cowering behind “Oh, but that may offend them”.

    I say offend them, screw them, put them up against the virtual wall, and show no mercy.


  4. What will they do when their cause is lost and Scotland free’s itself from what they perceive to be Westminster’s benevolent and wise rule. They will then be expecting Scotland to travel down the proverbial U-bend to a dark future. It will be time for them to lift sticks and high-tail it south to find their natural home and live in the glorious nirvana that will be brexit rUK. Trying not to harbour any hard feelings we should wave them goodbye with a smile.


  5. Peter

    This is a serious question and the answer has ramifications for YES and any campaign.

    You are trapped by wanting to call a spade a spade – but also acknowledging that YES will also need to eventually gain support form many who currently support those advocating for Westminster rule. Terms like ‘Traitor’ closes minds…it takes YES nowhere but actually shows YES as lashing out…who whats to join that.

    I go back to @Jeggit comment ‘Colonisation requires colonising the mind’. It gives three clear categories:

    – Colonisers (Westminster)
    – Colonised (Unionists who believe)
    – Uncolonised (Those resisting)

    “Morbidly Insecure” is my fav as that term calls out their most fatal flaws. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/enlightened-living/200807/understanding-the-dynamics-abusive-relationships)

    However, I don’t think even these are fully effective – even if they are more accurate.


  6. There is a difference between the ordinary voter, who votes for UK, and the politicians who demand they vote for UK.
    We ought to make that distinction.
    We will know plenty of well meaning folks, and have friends and family who voted “No” in 2014. Some having various reasons, but a lot, simply believed the false stories about stating in EU, or that we needed Barnett, etc.
    One such friend of mine, was rather astonished when I explained how much per annum Scotland sends to the UK Treasury i London.
    But for the politicians, like Rennie of the Libs, (who still supported the Bedroom Tax, and stood by the tory benefit sanctions) and Labour dudes like the hapless Richard Leonard, who is always girning off about tory Social Security policies, mainly when he’s complaining Scot Govt, is doing enough, about something they have next to zero control… such politicians must be called for what they are.
    I will call those politicians traitors to Scotland, because that is what they are.
    Very, very few pro 1907 politicians these days can be considered “misguided” in their belief of the Union. Once perhaps, decades ago, some could come into that category, but not today.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. That is an important distinction; which I make by referring to those who are actively working to damage Scotland’s interests. I don’t think ordinary voters could be accused of that.


      1. Which is why YES must be so careful with its language. Some voters see attacks on their representatives as attacks on them.

        The term has to have political punch that cuts through…but minimise blowback.


      2. On the other hand, it behoves all of is, Mr Bell, to educate ourselves before we go to the polls. If I had absolutely no idea about anything pertaining to the different parties and their agendas, I would not vote because, quite frankly, I’d be too ignorant to vote. However, having visited many doorsteps, you soon come to realize that even ordinary voters will opt for the choice that requires the least effort on their part, panders to their innate prejudices and makes them feel part of the pack, but, above all, they are the ‘I have no bread, but I’ll eat the cake’ types whose main preoccupation is looking after numero uno.

        I inwardly rage at people who say: well I voted NO last time, but I’d vote YES this time with all that Brexit stuff. Really? You had not the slightest thought in your head about your own country and its unassailable right to its own self-determination, but you voted NO anyway because some Tory/Labour/Lib Dem t**t told you to or informed you that you were far too bored and fed up of referendums to vote for independence. So, basically, it’s me-ism, wrapped in the Union Jack. Since a second indyref is not my preference, I feel no obligation to pander to these types at all. I call them anti-Scots because that is what they are.

        Quebecois thought they needed them on board in their second indyref and went out of their way to coddle them and pander to their wishes. Unfortunately, they then went out and voted NO again because the lure of big colonialist Canada trumped wee colonialized Quebec. There was a move towards independence by some NOs, but far too few.

        Whether people are traitors, quislings or just misguided, misinformed or dyed-in-the-wool Unionists, they know exactly what they are doing and if you just push in a certain direction and annoy them, they let you know in full technicolour why they voted against their own country or their adopted country. Me-ism, wrapped in the Union Jack, with a large pinch of anti-Scottish sentiment brought that NO vote in 2014. Colonialism and imperialism triumphed in 2014.


  7. Scalawag would fit then. It was a Southerner who believed in reconstruction after the American Civil War and supported the Republican Party. The definition of a Scottish Tory IMO


  8. Got it, Peter. Those people in Scotland who resist independence just want us to be a region of England/Britain. They are – REGIONALISTS !!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Dave Albiston

      Too kind to them.

      I think many would be happy to wear this with a badge of honour…(also the big problem with the term “Unionist”)


  9. Just call them out for what they are:

    British Nationalists

    Nothing wrong with that – it’s the truth after all. And please please please, avoid using the word “yoons” or “unionists”, since there is no union (and it gives them the false perception of a respectable position). Why give them the comfort blanket of “union” to hide under?

    But be consistent – I can assure they won’t like it one bit. 🙂


  10. I know what the british state would call them. James Joyce, ( Lord Haw haw ) an American born naturalized German Citizen, his job was to undermine the confidence of the british people by spreading fear and alarm using fake news. The british state hung him for treason.


  11. They are English Imperialists. Advising a Scot that he is in fact an English Imperialist will stick in the craw. Might just cause them to reconsider their position, which is after all what we want them to do.


  12. Rather than calling people names, which will never end well, best to call people ‘people’ and explain if & why you disagree with them.

    If you are asking such questions, you are not in a good place.


  13. I think when a yoon calls himself a “Real Scot”. They mean a blood and soil British nationalist. They probably think me with my Irish name am not a real Scot. Real Scots believe in subservience, serfdom and nae foreigners (Non Brits). That’s what they mean Peter. We are seen as agitators and enemies of the British state.


Leave a Reply to Tom Cancel reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s
