UK crisis toward Scottish
independence referendum
Should Scotland be an independent country?
by Michael Steen Hansen (2014), BA Project
English Language & International Studies (SIS) Aalborg University
1
Abstract
David Cameron held a formal speech at the Olympic Stadium in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, located
in Stratford, London, on the 7th of February 2014, in order to reach the Scottish people and influence the
public opinion before the Scottish referendum, which has to take place September 18th, 2014. This speech
presented some interesting aspects of how David Cameron sought to represent the patriotic spirit of
United Kingdom rather than an economic argument, and thereby, maintain specific power relations
between Scotland, the other kingdoms of the union and the world. From a critical perspective, this report
aims to evaluate the contemporary power relations under threat by applying a CDA, hence explain his
semiotic choice of language in order to maintain a cohesive United Kingdom.
2
Summary
David Cameron seeks to reproduce the British identity and preserve the United Kingdom under threat
from a Scottish independence referendum. This report is a 6th semester bachelor project in English
Language & International Studies (SIS) investigating the following problem:
“How does the contemporary premiere minister David Cameron deal with the coming Scottish
referendum in his formal speech at the Olympic Stadium in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London?
Why does Cameron represent a patriotic union, and how does his semiotic choice of language present
deeper global ideological power relations?”
The project starts with a methodology section explaining the application of Critical Discourse Analysis
presented for the most part by key thinkers such as Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak and Teun Van Dijk.
The presentation of data and method follow a four stages method presented by Fairclough on how to find
a social wrong. The Theory section presents the philosophy of critical realism behind CDA and concepts
from critical linguistics.
The main critic of Cameron’s speech in this CDA is the ideological abuse of a neo-liberal and neo-realist
patriotic agenda, which seeks to fix the lost economic argument in persuading Scotland to stay in the UK.
How can the Scottish voter choose his or her union without choosing its neo-liberal ideology with high
risk economy policies? Cameron uses his location to invoke a sport spirit of Team GB, and furthermore to
move that spirit back into the patriotism of United Kingdom through the representation of UK as a brand
and Scotland as being an integrated part of that brand and vision. His representation of people is
collectivized into three patriotic sub-groups and his argument is aggregated hence made into what he
coins ‘four compelling reasons for Scotland to stay within United Kingdom’ The analysis will look into
Cameron’s semiotic choices, representation of the British people and how compelling these four reasons
for unification are, and how he seeks to dominate public opinion through means of rhetoric and metaphor
in order to make Scotland vote ‘no’ to whether Scotland should be an Independent country on September
18th 2014. This referendum is of interest to the field of International Relations, because UK is an
important key actor on the international stage of nation, it is a strong industrial power, a strong military
power and a strong media power. What would happen if UK lost part of its image and identity through
this Scottish split?
3
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5
2. Problem ...................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 6
3.1. Data as semiosis and social process in reality ..................................................................... 7
3.2. Data ...................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3. Method ................................................................................................................................. 9
3.3.1. Stage 1: Focus upon a social wrong, in its semiotic aspect. ............................................. 9
3.3.2. Stage 2: Identify obstacles to addressing the social wrong............................................. 11
3.3.3. Stage 3: Consider whether the social order ‘needs’ the social wrong ............................ 12
3.3.4. Stage 4: Identify possible ways past the obstacles. ........................................................ 12
4. Theory ...................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1. Critical Realism and CDA ................................................................................................. 12
4.2. Conceptual basis. ............................................................................................................... 14
5. Outline of the Scottish Referendum speech .......................................................................... 14
6. Critical Discourse Analysis .................................................................................................... 15
6.1. Semiotic choices of a UK brand culture and sports team GB............................................ 15
6.1.2. The financial obstacles .................................................................................................... 19
6.2. Representing People through Language and Identity ........................................................ 20
6.3. Persuasion with abstractions .............................................................................................. 23
6.3.1. The first compelling reason why…................................................................................. 24
6.3.2. The second compelling reason why… ............................................................................ 25
6.3.3. The third compelling reason why… ............................................................................... 27
6.3.4. The fourth compelling reason why… ............................................................................. 28
7. Discussion................................................................................................................................. 30
7.1. Liberalism and Patriotism, the empire strikes back. .......................................................... 31
8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 33
References ................................................................................................................................ 33
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 34
The importance of Scotland to the UK David Cameron’s speech ............................................ 34
4
1. Introduction
United Kingdom finds itself in a severe fragmented dilemma caused by economic disputes
between the kingdoms of UK and the financial crisis, this conflict might have a major historical
and global impact on its future image from a global and international perspective, namely;
Scotland might want to split from the UK, wherefrom, Scotland would turn into a sovereign state
with Scottish National Party leading its government into an uncertain future.
“We believe Scotland is stronger in the UK, and the UK is stronger with Scotland in it”1
This is the argument formed by the government of UK, and at this moment in history; it has to
submit to the idealism of democracy and test whether it still is a democratic union. This is
important in order to justify its own legitimization, maintain its international reputation and stick
to western norms. The independence referendum will take place on September 18th and they call
it;
‘a once in a generation opportunity for people in Scotland to have their say about the
country’s future’2.
Pro’s and con’s emerge from this split in the spotlight and questions of whether it will be
recognized by other sovereign states, whether it will thrive in the global economy and how its
national strategy might develop.
At the Olympic Stadium in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, located in Stratford, London;
David Cameron held a formal speech on February 7th 2014, where his patriotism assumed a
certain anxiety towards loss of historical heritage and British identity. His speech was coined
‘flimsy’ by Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond3, which has dismissed David Cameron's
speech on the Scottish referendum.
It lacks substantial reason for the Scottish people to believe in a United Kingdom, and it
would seem he has lost the ‘economic argument’. How would this ‘democratic split’ change
1
Last accessed 10/4/14 at https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/scottish-independence-referendum
Last accessed 10/4/14 at https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/scottish-independence-referendum
3
See article and short interview statements of First Minister Alex Salmond at http://www.itv.com/news/2014-0207/camerons-scotland-speech-dismissed-as-flimsy/
2
5
United Kingdom, reflected upon a not so distant imperial past? In the shadows of uncertainty, the
rhetoric has turned into what some would coin a ‘desperate plea’ with a discourse agenda of
United Kingdom patriotism versus Scottish nationalism. Right now, it is important for the UK to
repeat and revise its unions narrative in order to make the Scottish voters remember the culture,
identity, heritage and history they share with England, Northern Ireland and Wales; hence, to
forge a stronger British identity and not to get frustrated by contemporary divisive political
disputes and financial crisis. David Cameron seeks to reproduce the patriotic spirit hence its
British identity, but what is the ideological power agenda hiding in between word?
2. Problem
How does the contemporary premiere minister David Cameron deal with the coming Scottish
referendum in his formal speech at the Olympic Stadium in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in
London? Why does Cameron represent a patriotic union, and how does his semiotic choice of
language present deeper global ideological power relations?
3. Methodology
“CDA does not constitute a well-defined empirical method but rather a cluster of approaches
with a similar theoretical base and similar research questions becomes most obvious here: there
is no typical CDA way of collecting data.” (Wodak & Meyer, 2001, s. 23)
Mainly, this assignment works with a critical linguistic or critical realist approach where
language is perceived as a set of resources used to produce language and discourse. Some of the
main power relations hide in the systematical relationships of causality and determination in
social reality. CDA is not a paradigm, but an application which undertakes an ongoing discussion
of what is the best systematical ways of applying its critical functions.
This assignment aims to investigate power and ideology through the concepts of semiotic
choices, the representation of people, the persuasion with abstractions through the use of rhetoric
and metaphors. All this combined should make up a critical discourse analysis (CDA) equivalent
the power message in David Cameron’s referendum speech. CDA is utilized in order to
demonstrate the power relations expressed in the language of Cameron. Through the
6
interdisciplinary approach of CDA and the scope of international relations theory, the focus for
this CDA is on the global effects of Cameron’s speech. In this way, we will understand what is at
stake from this Scottish referendum and how David Cameron not only speaks from the
perspective of the people and ‘what is best for them’ and their country, but from an international
political power agenda, where ideology and power actors and their relations are challenged from
a democratic referendum, and further, the possible construction of an new state actor.
The main focus of the social semiotic approach is to analyze the underlying available
repertoire of signs and their visual use in context to communicate wider ideas, moods and
attitudes and identities’, where we are interested in why specific means were used to create these.
(Machin & Mayr, 2012, s. 9)
3.1. Data as semiosis and social process in reality
According to Chouliaraki & Fairclough (1999) Social process can be seen as the interplay
between three levels of social reality: social structures, practices and events, furthermore, they
points three semiotic (or discourse-analytical) categories corresponding to: genre, discourse and
style. (Fairclough, 2010, s. 232)
Genres are semiotic ways of acting and interacting, corresponding to that of events in the
social processes. They define the intercourse of ‘source’ and ‘happening’ where the actors act
within a framework of social reality, that could be advertisements, television show, job
interviews, political speech, newspapers, concert’s or a wedding etc. In other words, it could as
well be perceived as an arena of action, wherefrom, power interacts actively or passively.
Discourses are semiotic ways of constructing aspects of the world to produce or reproduce
meaning through language in a physical, social or mental way, identified through different
position or perspectives of different social actors and groups, hence, it correspond with that of
social structures where social practices ‘mediate’ the relationship between different physical,
social or mental positions.
Finally, style aims at ‘ways of being’ it is the identity in their semiotic aspect. It lives
within our representation of titles, wearing, appearance, social environment and how this
assumes certain roles in social reality.
7
Discourse analysis works with how language produces meaning and aims to either reinforce or
challenge statements and evaluate how they maintain social formation, thus, critical discourse
analysis engage with power relations associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory and
captures many themes from post-structuralism and social constructivism, it still seeks to act
freely beyond any defined image and preconception. In this approach, it argues against a neutral
and rationalist or realist view of the world.
The role is to uncloak the hidden power relations, largely constructed through language,
and to demonstrate and challenge social inequities reinforced and reproduced. Power relations
are an underlying theme of CDA, and it seeks to explain why and how discourse works, and not
only to describe and interpret discourse in social context, but to understand how discourse
influences our understanding of social power. At the core of any statement in discourse analysis
is the underlying assumptions, justified beliefs, common sense and background story, and these
has to be either challenged or reinforced, they reside in the cognition of the social mind of
knowledge.
3.2. Data
The data I have chosen for this report finds its quality in the context of political persuasion
toward Scottish referendum, where public opinion has to be affected by political actors as part of
their political strategy. The speech of Premiere minister David Cameron has its relevance in the
social context of the Scottish referendum, its message, the place from where it is sent and the
significance of the time being, hence, the supposed power outcome from this challenging
referendum.
The genre is a political referendum speech, broadcasted on BBC, which makes it
multimodal, reaching a great audience. The theme of Scottish referendum aims to target a
patriotic discourse in order to reconcile the presumed British style and avoid a national split.
Cameron uses his character to express ‘Britishness’ as identity. Surprisingly, he avoids any
economic argument, as if it is presupposed he has already lost it. The event takes place before
the referendum, pointing out, there has to be a power agenda in order to influence the outcome,
which is why this data is of interest to apply an application of critical discourse analysis.
8
3.3. Method
Fairclough (2010) explains that method and theory is very interconnected in critical discourse
analysis, and that is why, methodology is using a dialectical-relational version of CDA in tansdisciplinary social research rather than a ‘method’, because he sees the process of a theoretical
“why and what” as corresponding to the method of “how” the object of research is constructed
(see (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) (Fairclough, 2010, s. 234)
This view is shared by many Critical Linguistic scholars working with CDA, even though, some
do believe it is not the case. Teun van Dijk (2013) argues;
“Being critical, first of all, is a state of mind, an attitude, a way of dissenting, and many more
things, but not an explicit method for the description of the structures or strategies of text and
talk” (Van Dijk, 2013)
Teun van Dijk’s position is according to Ruth Wodak a variation of tradition, where Wodak as
well as Fairclough work from a tradition of society and power, emerging from Michel Focault’s
tradition of theory. (Wodak & Meyer, 2001, s. 18) Nonetheless, according to Fairclough (2010),
CDA can be formulated initially as four ‘stages’ of method:
3.3.1. Stage 1: Focus upon a social wrong, in its semiotic aspect.
What is a social wrong? CDA is a form of critical social science and it is from a critical
perspective a way to seek to understand the source of social wrongs and their implications.
It is when human well-being is threatened, and power actors seeks to undermine social aspects of
reality causing problems rather than working toward ameliorating these conflicts and working
towards solving clashing differences. Minorities could be suppressed and marginalized for no
particular reason rather than they are not a majority and threatening the prevailing culture or
system. This is where authorities or power actors of any kind could be tempted to abuse their
power in being too dominating through an agenda which has its focus on an ideological game
and others opinions towards events and change, where the production of language and action is
unfair.
Social wrongs can also manifest itself in the representation of a particular preferred set of
cultural norms, where social injustice hides in the normalization of suppression of minority
9
cultures and particular types of people. Marginalization has its power in the production of
language; one has to ask why this suppressive representation is necessary? Of course, ‘a social
wrong’ is a controversial matter, but through diplomacy and critical thinking, it should be
possible to create a better way of understanding dialectic and political approaches to conflict. In
this first stage of method, the selection of an appropriate research topic has to be evaluated
critically, where even the analysts own beliefs and assumptions has to be challenged and put
aside, and trans-disciplinary ways of looking at a problem should be put into consideration and
action. A particular focus is put on dialectical relations between semiotic ways of understanding
moments with the broadest awareness.
In essence,
“the critical approach seeks to question the belief that there is an objective reality ‘out there’
separate from the beliefs, ideas and assumptions of the observer. As we observe the world, we are
also in the process of imposing meaning upon it; we only ever see the world as we think it exists.
Such an approach leads to a more critical and reflective view of theory, which is seen to have
constitutive purpose and not merely an explanatory one.” (Heywood, 2011, s. 74)
We do not see the world as it is, but we see it as we are; this stage works with the constructions
of objects by ways of understanding them from a theoretical perspective. Robert Cox, which is
known for his Gramscian approach to international relations (focus on social hegemony), he
stated ‘Theory is always for some one, and for some purpose’ (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2011, s.
138)
“Knowledge, in other words, cannot be objective and timeless in the sense that some
contemporary realists, for example, would like to claim. Social wrongs are often grounded in
culture, bureaucracy, the social basis and nature of authoritarianism, the structure of family, and
on exploring such concepts as reason and rationality as well as theories of knowledge.” (Baylis,
Smith, & Owens, 2011, s. 141) (notion of Frankfurt School’s critical focus)
The purpose of critical theory is to give voice to the suppressed and logically construct justice by
being aware of contemporary constitutive power abuses against the well-being of human beings,
despite this justice might undermine raison d'etat. The ethical standard is that all human well10
being must come before any ideological game. Further evaluation of ‘social wrongs’ could be
found in the research of ethics and social justice.
3.3.2. Stage 2: Identify obstacles to addressing the social wrong.
This approach is a rather indirect way of asking ‘what is about the way in which social life is
structured and organized that prevents it from being addressed.’ (Fairclough, 2010, s. 237) This
stage seeks to bring in analysis of the social order and the discursive practice as a point of entry
which is semiotic. The intention of discourse from an author in a context could deviate from the
actual semiosis, or just be a product of populist opinion, which the author happens to practice
from inter-discursive forces, but often, these are produced through very conscious agendas of
authoritarian strategy of language production which lack questioning for its legitimization. The
critical discourse analyst seeks to deliberate domination or any kind of power abuse from single
actors or group actors, and open up for debate and question on power relations. The possible
deviations should be addressed in the analysis and discussion of the argument, bringing in
notions of other aspects towards the problem.
In order to identify obstacles best as possible, Fairclough (2010) presents three systematic steps
which can be formulated as following:
1. Analyze dialectical relations between semiosis and other social elements: between orders of
discourse and other elements of social practices, between texts and other elements of events.
2. Select texts and focuses and categories for their analysis, in the light of and appropriate to the
constitution of the object of research.
3. Carry out analyses of texts, both inter-discursive analysis and linguistic/semiotic analysis.
Taken together, these three steps indicate an important feature of this version of CDA: textual
analysis is only a part of semiotic analysis (discourse analysis), and the former must be adequately
framed within the latter. The aim is to develop a specifically semiotic ‘point of entry’ into objects of
research which are constituted in a transdisciplinary way, through dialogue between different
theories and disciplines. (Fairclough, 2010, s. 237)
11
3.3.3. Stage 3: Consider whether the social order ‘needs’ the social wrong
Social order is not just something which ‘happens to be’, but it is something which rests on a
history of conflict, warfare and hard work from different power actors, something which is an
ongoing process of carrying order through the forces of social formation and change. To
challenge this order could trigger chaotic events rather than the desired peace and human wellbeing. One has to consider the ethical quality of the ‘social wrongs’ which is put into attention
and argument.
I believe one has to be aware of ethical considerations and evaluate whether there is a moral
‘need’ for the semiotic defragmentation of the discourse from a power actor and how they are
influencing social reality. I, the critical discourse analyst have to open my mind beyond my own
social and cultural reality in order to address a social wrong, even if it goes against my
Eurocentric and western values and beliefs. On the other hand, I should be able to analyze a
conflict outside my own social reality, where I should be able to interpret the semiotic structures
going on, on the international stage, from this referendum reflected on international relations
theory.
3.3.4. Stage 4: Identify possible ways past the obstacles.
To address a social wrong without addressing a solution or some kind of positive critique would
make CDA exclusively a dialectic disarming practice, this is not the case. Power is not to be
misinterpreted as destructive or a dirty word, neither should authority and ideology. CDA should
be considered a diplomatic tool to restore balance between power actors. This stage;
‘moves the analysis from negative to positive qritique: identifying, with a focus on dialectical
relations between semiosis and other elements, possibilities within the existing social process for
overcoming obstacles to addressing the social wrong in question.’ (Fairclough, 2010, s. 239)
4. Theory
4.1. Critical Realism and CDA
As mentioned in the Methodology section, it is difficult to separate theory and method in critical
discourse analysis, because they are intertwined. CDA is a theory of language practice. On the
12
other hand, critical realism is something separate from that of CDA, as this is a philosophical
position, as Teun Van Dijk stated; “Being critical, first of all, is a state of mind, an attitude”.
Fairclough et. al. (2001) explain critical realism in another, but very illuminating way;
“CR views objects as structured and as having particular causal powers or liabilities. That is,
they are able to act in certain ways and/or suffer certain changes. Thus a person who has learned
a language has a rich set of (causal) powers to communicate, and they have these powers even
though they do not use them all the time. (This is an example of a set of powers that needs a
certain amount of use if they are to be sustained, but at least in the short run we have these
powers even though we might not use them at certain times.) These powers exist (often, of course,
in latent form) but they can be activated in certain situations. If and when they are activated, the
effects depend on the context.” (Fairclough, Jessop, & Sayer, 2001, s. 5)
The ethical agenda of CDA is to make people aware of domination and power abuse in the social
context by using the critical mind and strategic linguistic tools to ask questions of ‘what’ ‘why’
and ‘how’. It’s a constant evaluation of power versus its legitimization versus true justice and
individual moral choice. Power and authority usually rest on some kind of ideological agenda,
where certain ideas, values and beliefs are maintained through language and multimodal media,
in order to dominate social consciousness, critical realism wants to be aware when this
domination turns abusive, propagandic or produces ‘social wrongs’ and inequalities. One of the
most infamous examples of this abuse in recent history is how the discourse of Hitler’s “mein
kampf” in relation to the ideological and political context in Germany at that time, was able to
change a whole society into genocidal practices and turn cultural reality into degenerating social
action. Critical realism serves as a very useful way of thinking constitutively in order to question
perceived truths, know where true moral belief is anchored, where ideas arrive from and how we
measure value.
Secondly, it is important to know how critical realists find it close to impossible to maintain only
one truth as it is in the natural sciences. The truth in the social sciences is a social formation in a
constant change; ‘natural laws’ and even the notion of ‘natural’ is a word used as an ideological
tool to shape perception of ‘one truth’, which could in turn, behave abusively in social contexts
of reality.
13
“critical realists distinguish the real from the actual and the empirical. The ’real’ refers
to objects, their structures or natures and their causal powers and liabilities. The ’actual’
refers to what happens when these powers and liabilities are activated and produce
change. The ’empirical’ is the subset of the real and the actual that is experienced by
actors.” (Fairclough, Jessop, & Sayer, 2001, s. 5)
Lastly, languages are considered resources by the critical linguistics, each of these kinds of
resources can allow the author to set up a basic shape of a social and natural world through their
speech, text or image. (Machin & Mayr, 2012) When it comes to CDA, we believe, that every
time power is in the balance, there is an agenda of power struggle; this struggle can become
salient through the right tools of analyzing.
4.2. Conceptual basis.
The conceptual basis for this CDA is a loose combination of approaches founded in the tradition
of critical linguistics, associated for the most part with a number of key authors (Kress, 1985;
Fairclough, 1989; Wodak, 1989, Van Dijk, 1991; Van Leeuween, 1996; Caldas Coulthard, 1997)
(found in (Machin & Mayr, 2012) ranging from the notion of semiotic choices to representation
of people and persuading with abstraction through means of metaphor and rhetoric. The most
relevant concept terms will be utilized to defragmentate the power relating message in the
discourse of Cameron.
5. Outline of the Scottish Referendum speech
The importance of Scotland to the UK David Cameron’s speech (see the appendix) can be
divided into 13 sections:
1. Thanking co-host and host (§ 1-2)
2. Sport Rhetoric as patriotic abstraction (§ 3)
Use of metaphor and sport spirit embedded in the UK flag of patriotism. ‘Team
GB’
3. Addressing the referendum problem (§ 4-6)
4. Representing people into 3 categories of patriots (§ 7-9)
1. Quiet patriots, 2. Shoulder Shruggers, 3. Only the few
14
5. Introduction to 4 compelling reasons why the United Kingdom is stronger with
Scotland within it (§ 10-11)
Presentation of speech and its purpose
6. The first compelling reason why the United Kingdom is stronger with Scotland
within it (§ 12-17)
Community through history of British nativeness.
7. The second compelling reason why the United Kingdom is stronger with Scotland
within it (§ 18-25)
Prosperity through a liberal argument:
“We’re the oldest and most successful single market in the world”
“Together we’re stronger at getting out there and selling our products to the
world.”
8. The third compelling reason why the United Kingdom is stronger with Scotland
within it (§ 26)
UK’s place in the world; seat at the UN Security Council, NATO, Europe and G8.
9. The fourth compelling reason why the United Kingdom is stronger with Scotland
within it (§ 27-29)
UK matter culturally through multimedia and fashion by being a soft power
superpower and a brand (§30)
10. The UK as a Brand (§ 30)
11. The emotional case (§ 34-36)
12. Message strategy (§ 37)
13. ‘Team GB’: the winning team in world history (§ 36-38)
6. Critical Discourse Analysis
6.1. Semiotic choices of a UK brand culture and sports team GB
Whenever discourse is put into practice, one has to consider the strategic aspect of language. In
order to capture the essence of why particular choices of words are put into sentences, we will
start this analysis by considering the use of language through semiotic choices.
Semiotic choices are where we look at how the word content is highlighting lexical fields that
reveal underlying beliefs and connotations. These are according to Van Dijk (2001) the kinds of
meanings that are alluded to part of the mental model of a text. Here we have some terms to
consider, that of word connotations, over-lexicalization, structural opposition, lexical choice and
suppression or lexical absence. Lexical choices and genre of communication has to do with the
producer knowing to whom he speaks.
To begin with, we can analyze the basic choice of words. Obviously, the connection this
speech has to patriotism makes a predominance of ‘United Kingdom’ and ‘UK’, where it is
15
mentioned 38 times in the speech, making notion UK is present 17 times and the overlexicalization of “our United Kingdom” is present 4 times. For some reason, there is a lexical
absence of ‘nation’, why is that? The most obviously explanation could be, that it is a structural
and strategic opposition to suppress the notion of a Scottish ‘national’ spirit as presented by
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond and the Scottish National party, competing with the
United Kingdom’s spirit. The explicit focus is made on ‘union’ and what this United Kingdom
spirit stands for.
The notion of ‘nation’ lies in the mentioning of Scotland. ‘Scotland’, ‘Scottish’,
Scottishness or ‘Scotch’ is mentioned 27 times and should according to Cameron not stand
separate from the United Kingdom (the true nation) but equal next to the people of England,
Wales and Northern Ireland..
The single most neo-liberal concern Cameron present is not on whether Scotland would
survive as a single state actor, or whether UK would continue as usual, but rather the economic
strategy and welfare concern.
In §5 he says “Scotland is part of a major global player” This argument is the great
concern that will haunt his discourse right up to the referendum, mainly, because the economic
argument between Scotland and the rest of United Kingdom would seem to have failed.
Furthemore, not to forget the power relation found in Commonwealth of Nations. His main focus
is put on a patriotic neo-liberal agenda, where the Brand “UK” must not lose its significance with
the ‘scottishness’ leaving it. In §30 he says explicitly,
“We come as a brand – and a powerful brand. Separating Scotland out of that brand would be like
separating the waters of the River Tweed and the North Sea. If we lost Scotland, if the UK changed, we
would rip the rug from our own reputation. The fact is we matter more in the world if we stay together.“
Make notion of his metaphor starts with modality of ‘would be like’ and then how he uses
common known British mainland places as ‘River Tweed’ and ‘the North Sea’ as part of his
metaphor of UK. You cannot separate the waters of River Tweed and the North Sea, which is the
same reason we cannot separate Scotland from UK. Implicitly, he might point to the North Sea
oil dilemma, which underlines some of the economic conflict between Scotland and the rest of
UK, where on the other hand, the River Tweed has always been the scenic boarder between
16
Scotland and England. This value put on UK as a brand consisting of England, Wales and
Northern Ireland and Scotland has a powerful neo-liberal agenda.
The economic theme of strategy of “how to win” is suppressed and exchanged with “do
we dare question our brand just because we seem to lose this round?” Another semiotic way he
did this was; indirectly, by the choice of placement for this event, and in the beginning of his
speech when he made a reference to the Olympic Games taking place 2012. He puts forth a
personal statement;
“But for me, the best thing about the Olympics wasn’t the winning; it was the red, the white, the blue. It
was the summer that patriotism came out of the shadows and came into the sun. Everyone cheering as one
for Team GB.”
By doing this, he adds up how ‘the red, the white and the blue’ is a flag, a brand (UK) and
equally a sports team (Team GB). Implicitly, he ask the voters of Scotland; “Are you not with us
anymore? Do you not like our flag, our sports and our brands?” “Great Britain” is perceived as
being the island of old friendly and cultural relations between Scotland, England and Wales.
These are strong emotional questions for many Scottish and British people in general and hold
neo-liberal features of “actors with common interest try to maximize absolute gains” (Baylis,
Smith, & Owens, 2011, s. 123).
Simultaneously, this statement invokes a deeper sports agenda ‘it wasn’t about the
winning or losing, but about having fun and trying our best, and never letting our team down’.
Right now, it would seem like the economic disputes are tearing apart the United Kingdom, and
Cameron pushes to the sport spirit; “do you want to split up just because we are under pressure?”
Furthermore, what exactly does he mean by ‘it was the summer that patriotism came out
of the shadows and came into the sun’? What kind of ‘shadows’ is he referring to? Perhaps a
long gone Imperial pride which has been marginalized as obscene? Patriotism has been coined a
dirty word due to historical warfare and imperialism in the name of patriotism and ideology,
some policies even seem to compare patriotism to fascism. What does Cameron mean by
shadow? He does not elaborate, and the audience has to imagine and make their own connotation
to the ‘shadows’.
In §4 it might seem as if he addresses the notion of an obsolete Empire agenda by stating:
17
“Centuries of history hang in the balance. A question mark hangs over the future of our United Kingdom”
What associations does this statement invoke? A question mark hanging over the future of our
United Kingdom? We get the impression of a military general looking at a map pointing his
pencil towards the islands of United Kingdom for conquest adding a question mark above;
doubting and questioning its strength and supremacy. Implicitly, this ‘balance’ hanging could be
interpreted as a vulnerable threat towards economic security and UK’s place in the world;
moreover, a similar neo-realist consideration of Statism and its possible survival and self-help
under threat; hanging in the balance of a question mark.
In §21, Cameron talks about this vision under what he called ‘The second compelling
reason why the United Kingdom is stronger with Scotland within it’ where he addresses the
notion of ‘prosperity’:
§21 And it’s not just a plan; it is a vision. The United Kingdom as the big European success story of this
century – moving from an island sinking under too much debt, too much borrowing, too much taxation to a
country that is dynamic, exporting, innovating, creating. And Scotland is right at the heart of that vision
The over-lexicalization of -what they were- ‘too much debt, too much borrowing, too much
taxation’ and the metaphor of ‘an island sinking into this’ moving over to -what they have
become- ‘the big European success story of this century’ has a very optimist and manipulative
tone to it. What does he mean by being ‘dynamic, exporting, innovating, creating’? and further,
from where does he have the idea of being ‘the big European success story of this century?’
Maybe, in terms of economic success, that price would most possible go to Germany.
It would seem like there is two layers of this speech, on the one side is the global neoliberal ‘Corporate UK’ talking and trying to influence one of its business units: ‘Scotland’,
saying; “do not break out, we are stronger together”. On the other hand, we have the historical
nation: ‘United Kingdom’, talking to one of its kingdoms: ‘Scotland’, saying; “do not break out,
we are stronger together”. The Conservative view is more that of preserving the kingdoms united
in a cultural and economic sense, as it has been for so long, where the neo-liberal is more
concerned with how the economic game might change.
18
6.1.2. The financial obstacles
How can the Scottish voter choose his or her union without choosing its neo-liberal ideology
with high risk economy policies?
This is what I will address as my argument for a social wrong. David Cameron might be right
when he says “Centuries of history hang in the balance” but not because of the people, but due
to ideological power struggle, “A question mark hangs over the future of our United Kingdom”
It is not the United Kingdom which is the problem, but rather the ideological and financial
organization, under which some people suffer, and which is causing the dissolving of United
Kingdom. Another question rising in the turmoil of a Scottish independence is the question of
currency. Will Scotland still stay close to the pound and the Bank of England? Or will it make its
own currency? In this case, it will have to take a fair share of the national debt, and it might have
to make its own new Scottish central bank. In §19, Cameron says:
“And in that world of uncertainty, we are quite simply stronger as a bigger entity. An open economy of 63
million people; we’re the oldest and most successful single market in the world, and with one of the oldest
and most successful currencies in the world. That stability is hugely attractive for investors.
‘World of uncertainty’ is the neo-liberal and neo-realist world-view of anarchical nation-states.
‘quite simply’ is an exaggeration towards ‘being stronger’ as a ‘bigger entity’. But how does he
know UK has the ‘most successful’ single marked in the world, and one of the oldest and ‘most
successful’ currencies in the world?
The Bank of England (founded in 1694) and is one of the oldest existing banks in the
world, yet in 1998, it lost the responsibility for the regulation and control of the banks within the
union4, and that responsibility was transferred to the Financial Services Authority (FSA), which
claims on its main page to be an independent non-governmental body5. This body has the
structure of a corporation, causing us to believe its agenda is set on a very neo-liberal and even
capitalist agenda. The Bank of England act of 1998 state as following:
“An Act to make provision about the constitution, regulation, financial arrangements and
functions of the Bank of England, including provision for the transfer of supervisory
functions; to amend the Banking Act 1987 in relation to the provision and disclosure of
4
5
Bank of England act 1998, legislation: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Documents/legislation/1998act.pdf
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/about
19
information; to make provision relating to appointments to the governing body of a
designated agency under the Financial Services Act 1986; to amend Schedule 5 to that Act;
to make provision relating to the registration of Government stocks and bonds; to make
provision about the application of section 207 of the Companies Act 1989 to bearer
securities; and for connected purposes.” [23 April 1998] 6
This ‘governing body of a designated agency’ is the FSA, which was made under the Margaret
Thatcher administration called the Financial Services Act 1986. This legislation and its lexical
choice are very formal and lack a specific designating profile of “who is in charge?” A power
struggle between legislation, government and corporate power actors is very obvious here, and
the agenda propose a neo-liberal agenda, where the government should only act as the referee
among the global non-governmental corporate actors.
Moving back to Scotland; its North Sea oil, promotion of green energy and
environmental concerns has domestic profits which might be suppressed by the union’s neoliberal agenda. Scotland might suffer from adverse legislative infiltrations and pressure from
global corporate actors, where the only solution toward the Scottish well-being might be a split
from the Bank of England, FSA supervision and the currency union. This awareness might be
were David Cameron knows, he might again have lost the financial argument. The government
of UK cannot control the ‘financial beast’ of global non-governmental action, but Cameron has
faith in the union, why? Because ‘The stability of British currency is hugely attractive for
investors’ (the neo-liberal argument) and United Kingdom’s governmental role (versus
legislative and corporate entities) might be perceived stronger when it has Scotland as one of its
foundational pillars.
6.2. Representing People through Language and Identity
The way people are represented through language and identity works with the semiotics
of style as ‘ways of being’; the way we understand and interpret ourselves and our surroundings,
our social role and appearance in relation to other selves and roles. National identity is closely
anchored in a Eurocentric tradition, and this identity is threatened from globalization and its
social formations. Along these identities, strategies of language emerge as ‘us’ and ‘them’
mentality which has also been termed in-group and out-group perceptions by sociologists and
6
Bank of England act 1998, legislation: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Documents/legislation/1998act.pdf
20
psychologists. Representation of groups by classification has to be considered as relevant
information for events.
Van Leeuween (1996) offers a comprehensive inventory of the ways that we can classify
people and the ideological effects that these classifications may have (Machin & Mayr, 2012, s.
79) one of these is the personalization and impersonalization, which works with the classification
of either a specific name or title versus an organizational representation in relation to context.
In Cameron’s effort to implement a patriotic spirit among the Scottish people, he did not
designate much personalization. The most significant Personalization is his wife in the ‘brand
argument’ in §30
“My wife, Samantha, is an ambassador for the British Fashion Council and she sees and raves about the
international impact of our fashion, helped along massively by Scottish designers like Christopher Kane
and Jonathan Saunders. Sometimes we can forget just how big our reputation is – that the world over the
letters ‘UK’ stand for unique, brilliant, creative, eccentric, ingenious.
What this personalization does is our connotation to ‘his wife’ alluding a collectivization of ‘our
wives’ as being ‘business minded’ and how UK holds a strong brand within the fashion marked.
And again, he uses liberal mission statement strategy of implementing positive comparatives to
the brand UK in terms of adjectives.
In §1, he thanks Glasgow Caledonian University for cohosting the event. Glasgow
Caledonian is one of the proud and old universities of Scotland. And in §2 he praise it by calling
it ‘a fantastic, forward-looking university’. What can we assume from this statement? That by
cohosting the event where Cameron seeks to save the unification of Scotland and UK, is thereby,
making GCU ‘a fantastic, forward-looking university’? It is doubtful to believe the whole
university has the solely interest of Scotland staying in UK? It might better be in the interest of
the specific persons who cohost the event, but Cameron impersonalizes them by adding that
opinion to the whole University.
Functionalization is where participants can be functionalized by being depicted in terms
of what they do (Machin & Mayr, 2012, s. 81) considering this concept and impersonalization. I
would like to address your focus to §5-6;
5§ Now, I believe passionately that it is in their interests to stay in the United Kingdom. That way Scotland
has the space to take decisions, while still having the security that comes with being part of something
21
bigger. From Holyrood they can decide what happens in every hospital, every school, every police station
in Scotland. And in the United Kingdom, Scotland is part of a major global player. Now those are the
arguments that we will keep on putting until 18th September, but it is their choice, their vote.
Here he address the governing functions Scotland has as part of the United Kingdom,
wherefrom, Holyrood Parliament has its liberate functions to take decisions (over-lexicalized
three times as a persuasive mean) as in being the one; ‘deciding what happens in every hospital,
every school, every police station in Scotland’, whereas, Scotland is functionally independent
already, but, by being part of something bigger (the brand UK) they share the security
(economically and militarily) of ’being part’ of a major global player. This argument alludes
nothing less but a neo-liberal and neo-realist agenda. What about his main argument in his
speech?
6§ But my argument today is that, while only 4 million people can vote in this referendum, all 63 million of
us are profoundly affected. There are 63 million of us who could wake up on 19th September in a different
country, with a different future ahead of it. That’s why this speech is addressed not so much to the people
of Scotland but to the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Within these countries, there are a
whole range of different views about this referendum.
Aggregation means that participants are quantified and treated as statistics, where the number is
measured in relation to volumes and amounts. And his argument truly fall critic for being
aggregated and collectivized. But why should the general population base their vote on an
argument of aggregation and collectivization? Because numbers they are persuasive. Let us look
into his numbers and how they impress us in terms of argument.
‘only 4 million (Scottish) people can vote in this referendum, all 63 million (UK’s
population) are profoundly affected’. From this point, he assumes 63 million people who call
themselves British and being a part of the UK. He assumes they (all the 63 million UK people)
are unfairly treated as it is only 4 million out of the 63 million who has a vote in this referendum.
They (‘us’ 63 million people) might wake up on 19th September in a different country.
Pronoun versus Noun is a very familiar persuasive tool, the clash of “us” and “them”,
where the author assumes a positive “we”; presupposing a negative ‘them’ somewhere, instead
of pointing to specific proper names of actors.
22
So, in his argument, he puts forth the suggestion of inequality by 4 million against 59
million, which is quite unlikely, as not all 63 million people share the same patriotic persona, and
a need to embrace their national identity, as he so forth assumes. His argument is somehow
delusive and loose.
His main effort to represent people is in his attempt to divide the population of United
Kingdom into 3 patriotic categorizes; the first being the ‘quiet patriot’ presented in §7, the
second being the ‘shoulder shruggers’ in §8, and lastely, ‘only the few’ in §9. What he does here
is what is termed collectivization, and he wants you to pick your group. It is always useful to
consider how participants are described as part of a collectivity, where I would like to address his
last categorization in §9: ‘only the few’.
Cameron believes that it is ‘only the few’ who do not appreciate the history of the United
Kingdom; it is ‘only the few’ who do not have a patriotic feeling toward the United Kingdom.
Looking at the multicultural society of United Kingdom, I am inclined to believe what he
designate ‘only the few’ might not be true. Actually, it might better be ‘quite a lot’ instead. But it
is not useful to address it that way, as it is against his argument. This collective representation
needs statistical calculation.
6.3. Persuasion with abstractions
We continually think of things by reference to others in order to understand them
(Machin & Mayr, 2012)
Metaphor is a fundamental element to our human thought in ways of comprehending the world
and fit it into our understanding. This theme is present throughout Cameron’s speech and is
fundamental to political rhetoric. Take a look at some of the paragraphs examined in the analysis
so far;
§30 “Separating Scotland out of that brand would be like separating the waters of the River Tweed and the
North Sea. If we lost Scotland, if the UK changed, we would rip the rug from our own reputation.”
Furthermore in §21
23
“The United Kingdom as the big European success story of this century – moving from an island sinking
under too much debt, too much borrowing, too much taxation to a country that is dynamic, exporting,
innovating, creating. And Scotland is right at the heart of that vision”
And §3- 4
“But for me, the best thing about the Olympics wasn’t the winning; it was the red, the white, the blue. It
was the summer that patriotism came out of the shadows and came into the sun. Everyone cheering as one
for Team GB.”
….
“Centuries of history hang in the balance. A question mark hangs over the future of our United Kingdom”
Lakoff, (1993) explains it as in communication; we transport processes of understanding
somewhere from one realm of conceptual domain to another (Machin & Mayr, 2012, s. 165).
Politics are often too complicated for the populist crowd to understand, so metaphors serves as a
tool to mediate between desired understandings of actual events. This is where the power often
hides; as there is preferred ways of making public knowledge factual, hence, metaphors are often
figuratively encapsulated in the cultural consciousness.
Cameron seeks to make a public understanding of what he calls four compelling reasons
why the United Kingdom is stronger with Scotland within it. His rhetoric is based on an appeal
form of ethos (and pathos at the end from §27-37). Ethos is a concept that is social and it is
determined by culture and the character of the public speaker. His first ‘compelling’ reason has a
lot to do with the appeal of ethos.
6.3.1. The first compelling reason why…
§12 “The first is our connections with each other. Over 3 centuries we have lived together, worked together
and frankly we’ve got together: getting married, having children, moving back and forward across
borders…”
By doing a trigonometry of three centuries and three forms of ‘togetherness’; he seeks to
map out a form of cultural connection. By living together; they share culture, friendship and
mundane perceptions, by working together; they share community and business, and by getting
24
together; they have formed family. Family is further trigonometrized with 1) getting married, 2)
having children, 3) moving back and forward across borders. The strategy of trigonometry makes
up for a good rhythm and is a persuasive strategy for easy listening and memorizing. He moves
on with a structural metaphor
“…Such is the fusion of our bloodlines that my surname goes back to the West Highlands and, by the way,
I am proud of my Scottish heritage as I am of my English or my Welsh heritage.”
Actually, today, we know that the traditional idea of bloodlines is biologically false. Blood is not
inherited by all members of the family; they could easily have different blood-types, on the other
hand, the hereditary from our ancestors has a genetic code and the bloodline idea is a structural
and conservative metaphor, furthermore, a fusion is a term borrowed from physics referring to a
nuclear fusion.
So, a nuclear fusion of bloodlines is how he seeks to represent the connection of Scottish and
British people?
He moves on in §13 passing images of past clan notions, his name meaning ‘crooked
nose’ with a clan motto of ‘let us unite’. The use of motto has a strong neo-liberal business and
sport related connection, now he seeks to use it as an assignation for UK.
‘Let us unite’ is way too limited and too fabricated as a hereditary mean to preserve the
UK brand. He could as well make a clan-motto announcement of ‘freedom’ standing tall as
William Wallace in brave heart. The emotional impression might just not be as compelling as in
the movie.
6.3.2. The second compelling reason why…
§18 “The second is our prosperity. Some people look at the United Kingdom only in terms of debit and
credit columns, tax and spend, and how that gets split between our 4 nations. But that completely misses the
bigger picture. This is a world that has been through massive economic storms, where economic
competition is heating up as never before, where we have to work harder than ever just to make a living.”
‘Prosperity’ is loose and not a compelling reason for unification. He could just as well say ‘the
second is our happiness’ or ‘our freedom’ – a positive connotation is not a compelling reason. He
25
moves on with hedging ‘some people’ and creating a strategic ambiguity with his claim. Who
these ‘some people’ are, is uncertain and is rather used as a ‘dress up’ by Cameron to make claim
for his preferred ‘wrong picture of the circumstance’, which is, the 4 nations seems to be split up
by financial crisis; moving on to presenting his ‘bigger picture’ presented with a narrative of
‘mythical character’ toward a world paradigm: “This is a world that has been through massive
economic storms, where economic competition is heating up as never before”.
The bigger picture might be served better as: “our financial system has become obsolete;
the big liberal argument has failed, now it would seem better to defragmentate into smaller units
with more limited economic systems.” Exactly this statement might be the reason why Salmond
coined his speech ‘flimsy’ a positive connotation as a compelling reason for weak institutional
unification is dim.
Cameron moves on in §20 with a statement derived from anarchical anxiety. “In a world
of uncertainty, we are quite simply stronger as a bigger entity” this argument has a very neorealist tone to it.
His rhetorical strategy moves the pessimist perception of neo-realism into the more neo-liberal
optimism in §20:
“20§ But let me be clear. The central part of my economic argument for the UK is not about what we’d lose
if we pulled apart, but about what we could gain in this world if we stay together…”
In this case, he uses linguistic modality. The central part of his argument is a probability of
desired reality, but not something he is able to promise; “not what we ‘would’ lose, but what we
‘could’ gain”. He presents his probability wish based on a governmental long-term economic
‘plan’ for Britain:
“… getting behind enterprise, dealing with our debts, a plan to give the people of this country peace of
mind and security for the future”
A goal without a plan is just a wish, and he seeks to make the plan equal to the wish without any
argument for a working plan other than faith, and that is not strong enough for a practical
promise.
26
He presents the most obvious pledge a politician can seek to promise a country in financial crisis,
but he does not ensure anyone that he is actually capable of delivering the commodity. The only
promise is that ‘a bigger entity is stronger than a small entity’, again, this is dim and lack
conviction.
Then he moves on to ‘the vision’ argument of strategy in §21: “And it’s not just a plan; it is a
vision. The United Kingdom as the big European success story of this century.”
6.3.3. The third compelling reason why…
§26 Now, the third reason we’re stronger together is our place in the world. Together, we get a seat at the
UN Security Council, real clout in NATO and Europe, the prestige to host events like the G8. Together
we’ve got the finest armed forces on our planet. I think of the fighter pilots originally operating from RAF
Lossiemouth who flew sorties over Libya: the legendary Scottish titles now part of the Royal Regiment of
Scotland, like the Black Watch and the Highlanders.
This argument might be the more favorable as a neo-realist reason and that is of interest
for this analysis. Why is United Kingdom so important in the world order? They have a strong
industrial and military position through the UN Security Council, NATO and G8. Cameron hit
the spot for a compelling international relational argument, but still, his argument is in relation to
his neo-realist and neo-liberal paradigm. What power relations do we find in this statement?
Aiming the G8 as UK being ‘the prestigious host’, has its foundation in the industrial complex;
mass-producing countries wrestling for domination and military supremacy.
Let us look at his lexical choice: ‘we’ve got the finest armed forces on our planet’ and an
over-lexicalization of ‘the legendary Scottish titles’ In this case, it is a matter of representing
image; an image of having the best military position by offering the best security to its citizens
and the most effective offensive position toward possible enemies.
Secondly, having the best industrial functionalism, and that, he seeks to keep, in order to
keep United Kingdom’s dominant image in the world; an image that is under threat from the
Scottish referendum.
27
What is his representation of UK in NATO? A place from where they have ‘real clout’.
From a neo-realist perception, this is indeed a compelling reason for Scotland to stay within the
UK, but, from an idealist perspective, being big and dominant is not always the best position.
Why is that? Because the mental model of language is what construct our perception of power.
The neo-realist perception fall critic for being too rational and focused on the physical and
material model of reality.
6.3.4. The fourth compelling reason why…
§29 And make no mistake: we matter more as a United Kingdom – politically, militarily, diplomatically
and culturally too. And our reach – our reach is about so much more than military might; it’s about music,
our film, our TV, our fashion. The UK is the soft power superpower.
This argument is indeed of interest as well, because, this encapsulates the power relation residing
in the mental model of representing the UK image to the world in the semiotic world of
multimodality. United Kingdom is a multimedia power and its fashion encircles the world of
style. He uses the metaphor of being a ‘soft power superpower’ and this might not be far from an
actual truth evaluated from a media analytical approach, but, it is uncertain how this media-world
might be changed from a UK split.
What is going on in his statement? He starts with a ‘make no mistake’ alluding being
against his perspective is a mistake, and hence, what he is going to say is important “We matter
more as a United Kingdom – politically, diplomatically and culturally too”
He moves on: “And our reach - our reach…” this ‘reach’ is a hyperbole power
expression, which means, there is an exaggeration. Reaching is something we do when we want
to grab something, and by presenting United Kingdom as a ‘body’ capable of ‘reaching out’; he
wants us to believe in UK’s capability as a unified body; reaching out to a multimodal media
world. He enhances the reach with an over-lexicalization of ‘so much more’ than military might;
the reach is in our multimodal media.’
“You get teenagers in Tokyo and Sydney listning to Emeli Sandé. You get people in Kazakhstan and
Taiwan watching BBC exports like Sherlock; there’s a good example.”
28
This is yet another representation of people which is geographical. He wants you to imagine the
global effect of multimedia and how United Kingdom might have a major impact, but it is not a
certainty. In this sentence, he enhances his own example by saying it is good. At this moment in
the speech, you would not realize him saying this, because you have reached a ‘flow’ state of
listening to his rhetoric, where the critical mind could be deceived, and you blindly believe it to
be a good example.
Later in § 29 he further explains:
“Famously (over-lexicalization) Aung San Suu Kyi has said it helped her through her long years of
detention, saying, ‘Everywhere I’ve been, the BBC has been with me’ And the BBC itself, founded by
Scotsman.”
Aung San Suu Kyi was a famous instrumental tool for the spread of western norms through her
political work in Burma and promotion of democracy. Sadly, she has become some kind of
propaganda item for neo-liberalism. It is surprising that Cameron chooses her in his speech as yet
another strategic tool for argument. Moreover, he ends it by implying BBC as being founded by
a Scotsman. How is this relevant for her story of favoring BBC in her detention? None at all, it is
part of Cameron’s representation of British identity and ameliorate the cultural ties between
Scotland and the rest of UK.
This is yet another part of discursive strategy of presenting speech and speakers in a way that
deviates from the actual reason for speech or the actual way the speaker spoke. Sometimes,
speakers are even presented as saying something they never said, and in a very abusive manner.
In §33, Cameron presents Nelson Mandela and his speech as following:
“he was making the case for his life against apartheid, and in that speech he invoked the example of Britain.
He said, ‘I have great respect for British political institutions, and for the country’s system of justice.’ He
said, ‘I regard the British Parliament as the most democratic institution in the world’ Our Parliament, our
laws our way of life – so often, down the centuries, the UK has given people hope”
29
Nelson Mandela is not alive today to defend this presentation of him and his speech. Cameron
uses that, and he abuses the symbol he has become in regard to racial peace in South Africa, and
misuses him (being a symbol) placing him in an event (when he was making the case for his life
against apartheid) ‘invoking’ the example of Mandela as having ‘great respect’ for British
political institutions etc. and further saying “I ‘regard’ the British parliament as ‘the most’
democratic institution in the world’ – how to you measure democratic institution as being ‘the
most’ democratic? He does not stop there; he uses this presentation of speech and speaker to
invoke his desired patriotism of ‘our’ Parliament, ‘our’ laws ‘our’ way of life. Ending it up with
how this patriotism has given people hope? – How did Cameron turn this around? From Mandela
simply supposed to imply respect for the British institutions and regard the British parliament as
being the most democratic, to suddenly valuating it as a message of hope?
7. Discussion
Now, when the persuasive strategy and power relation has become salient, the evaluation
of analysis is up for discussion; would Scotland be able to hold strong alliances in a world where
security is linked to international relation policies? Where economy is linked to global
interconnectedness through international and regional market unions, such as EU? New
interesting questions emerge in terms of whether Scotland will bond a strong financial and
cultural connection to Scandinavia and its green politics, as some argue it might perceive itself as
sharing a better environmental cultural heritage with the Old Norse countries, than that of the old
Celtic7, especially Norway, due to similar North Sea oil advantages and Norway’s economical
state sovereignty.
On the international stage of international relations policy, two rationalist approaches
thrive; neo-realism and neo-liberalism. Neo-realism might be best presented in Cameron’s
figurative language of ‘a question mark hanging above the future of our United Kingdom’. The
neo-realist believes in the military power of the state as being the one having the last word in any
conflict, raison d'être. Statism, Security and Self-help are the three S’s at the core of realist
thinking, and how these anarchical pursuits among states cause international political games; the
7
See blog entry from Abroad In The Yard at http://www.abroadintheyard.com/scotland-scandinavia-shared-vikingheritage-split-from-united-kingdom/ Last accessed 29/04/14
30
world is a competitive place where self-interest rules. On the other hand, neo-liberalists have
more faith in community through regimes, institutionalism and non-violence. But fall critic for
putting way too much attention on the economic game. Steven L. Lamy put it this way:
“Both theories assume that states are value maximizers and that anarchy constrains the behavior
of states. But what about domestic forces that might promote more cooperative strategy to
address moral or ethical issues? (…) There may be a momentum to cooperation and institution
building that both theories underestimate. (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2011, s. 124)
7.1. Liberalism and Patriotism, the empire strikes back.
Liberalism pulls in two directions: Its commitment to freedom in the economic and social spheres
leans in the direction of a minimalist role for governing institutions, while the democratic
political culture required for basic freedoms to be safeguarded requires robust and
interventionist institutions. (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2011, s. 103)
The liberal position is a well know political position, and its discourse aims at the individual
freedom and how this creates the best possible social communities through institutionalism and
organization. In some cases, this is true, but sadly, critical realists have time after time pointed to
how injustice rises from a neo-liberalist agenda. Contemporary neo-liberalism has been shaped
by the assumptions of commercial, republican, sociological and institutional liberalism and
commercial and republican liberalism provide the foundation for current neo-liberal thinking in
Western governments. These western countries promote free trade and democracy in their
foreign policy programmes. (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2011, s. 122)
One of the major critics on the social outcome of neo-liberalism is the manipulation of needs by
vested interest, where only ‘one dimensional society’ or a few is thriving.
“Modern marketing techniques have massively expanded this capacity for manipulation,
not least through the development of a ‘brand culture” (klein 2000) (Heywood, 2011, s.
148)
31
This concept has its pronunciation in consumerism, which is a psychological model whereby a
cultural phenomenon is thriving and personal happiness is equated with the consumption of
material possessions. (Heywood, 2011, s. 149) Utilitarianism is a well-known moral argument
which assumes that individuals act so as to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, these being
calculated in terms of utility or use-value, usually, seen as satisfaction derived from material
consumption. The global spread of consumerist ethics is therefore merely evidence of deepseated material appetites on the part of humankind. (Heywood, 2011, s. 148)
The social wrong of a neo-liberal ‘brand culture’ throughout Cameron’s speech of argument in
relation to his unfavorable patriotic means of preserving United Kingdom, might not be all this
bad after all. One has to remember, that social order playing on a two tier platform of a global
stage and a local stage. It is not just something which happens on its own, and yes, United
Kingdom has a long history of globalization and trade going back to imperial times, still existing
in a transformed scale through neo-liberalistic functions such as common-wealth, where it was
the superpower of the days, referred to today as a soft power superpower through multimedia
dominance.
It is difficult to know for sure what a United Kingdom without the ‘Scottish’ (as Cameron
presents it) would look in the future. Why should United Kingdom’s self-interest not be open for
strategy? Neo-liberalism and its shared key points to neo-realism have made up what some
would suggest (notion of George Bush Senior speech on sep. 11, 1991) being ‘a new world
order’ where the global stage thrives on the free global marked policies, and here, United
Kingdom is truly a powerful global player. One of Cameron’s most explicit connotations to the
British Empire, Liberalism and Patriotism is in §22 where he says
22§ When the Scottish enlightenment met the industrial revolution, intellectual endeavour and commercial might
combined to shape global economic ideas. And that power of collaboration is there today. Together we’re stronger at
getting out there and selling our products to the world.
When one major organ of an old global player’s body is under threat of separation, of course,
the whole body, and that organ is in an unsecure state and the welfare is under threat. The
Rhetoric of David Cameron is not obscene or insidious, and he has a point to his argument. But
when UK comes as a so strong brand, it might be interesting to look to the future and see what a
32
Scottish brand might look like? And strong collaboration with the UK would not be uncertain, on
the contrary, it would seem most likely.
8. Conclusion
The contemporary premiere minister David Cameron deals with the coming Scottish referendum
by means of promoting a patriotic and neo-liberal union and UK as a brand. Too much history
and global culture is encapsulated in the British identity. By losing part of that identity, the
whole identity is under threat. The anarchy among nations has Cameron locked in anxiety toward
the future of UK without Scotland. UK is a major global actor, and the he believes the British
currency is a very popular and trustworthy currency for investors. His semiotic choice of
language and representations of three patriotic British groupings is a mental strategy of seeking
to protect the global British order of style. Deeper ideological power relations hide in the
preservation of a neo-liberal agenda, which seeks to keep the free trade high on the global
market, but how can the Scottish voter choose his or her union without choosing its neo-liberal
ideology with high risk economic policies? For the Scots, the domestic infrastructure and
economy might thrive better under another political agenda separate from that of UK. Cameron
says in his speech, that the speech is not so much for the people of Scotland, but for the people of
the UK, as in, what would happen to the identity if the Scottishness left the UK? Cameron’s
mean of argument is that most of UK don’t have a vote in this matter and for the Scottish people,
they might achieve more in the long run by being part of something bigger, being part of UK and
its ‘prosperity’.
References
Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2011). the Globalization of World Politics: an introduction to
International Relations. London: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge:
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, Harlow,
England: Longman Group Limited 1995.
Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Sayer, A. (2001). Lancaster: Critical Realism and Semiosis,
Lancaster University.
Heywood, A. (2011). Global Politics. London: palgrave foundations.
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis. Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE publications Inc.
33
Van Dijk, T. (2013, May 14). Ediso Portal. Retrieved April 25, 2014, from edisoportal.org:
http://www.edisoportal.org/debate/115-cda-not-method-critical-discourse-analysis
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE
publications Inc.
Appendix
The importance of Scotland to the UK David Cameron’s speech
BBC speech access: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEVnUFnToo
Source:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-importance-of-scotland-to-the-uk-david-
camerons-speech
Organizations: Cabinet Office and Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street
Delivered on: 7 February 2014 (Transcript of this speech, exactly as it was delivered)
Page history: Updated 7 February 2014
Policies: Facilitating a legal, fair and decisive referendum in Scotland and Informing the debate on Scotland's
constitutional future
Topic: Scotland
Topical event: Scottish independence referendum
Minister: The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Location: Lee Valley VeloPark
1§ I want to thank Glasgow Caledonian for co-hosting this event.
2§ This is a fantastic, forward-looking university, and we are very grateful for your support today, as we are to the
Lee Valley Velo Park for hosting us in this magnificent space.
3§ Less than 2 years ago, this velodrome was a cauldron of excitement. Chris Hoy was ripping round at 40 miles per
hour. I was up there. I had a whole seat but believe me I only used the edge of it. 3 more golds – an incredible night.
But for me, the best thing about the Olympics wasn’t the winning; it was the red, the white, the blue. It was the
summer that patriotism came out of the shadows and came into the sun. Everyone cheering as one for Team GB.
And it’s Team GB I want to talk about today. Our United Kingdom.
4§ Last year, the date for the Scottish referendum was fixed. The countdown was set. And today we have just over 7
months until that vote. Centuries of history hang in the balance. A question mark hangs over the future of our United
34
Kingdom. If people vote yes in September, then Scotland will become an independent country. There will be no
going back. And as I have made clear, this is a decision that is squarely and solely for those in Scotland to make.
5§ Now, I believe passionately that it is in their interests to stay in the United Kingdom. That way Scotland has the
space to take decisions, while still having the security that comes with being part of something bigger. From
Holyrood they can decide what happens in every hospital, every school, every police station in Scotland. And in the
United Kingdom, Scotland is part of a major global player. Now those are the arguments that we will keep on
putting until 18th September, but it is their choice, their vote.
6§ But my argument today is that, while only 4 million people can vote in this referendum, all 63 million of us are
profoundly affected. There are 63 million of us who could wake up on 19th September in a different country, with a
different future ahead of it. That’s why this speech is addressed not so much to the people of Scotland but to the
people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Within these countries, there are a whole range of different views
about this referendum.
7§ There are those I’d call the ‘quiet patriots’ – people who love the United Kingdom, love our flag and our history,
but think there’s nothing much that they can do to encourage Scotland to stay in the UK, so they stay out of the
debate.
8§ Then there are the ‘shoulder shruggers’ – people who are ambivalent about the outcome, who think this doesn’t
matter much to anyone south of the border. Their view is that, if Scotland left the UK, then yes, that would be sad,
but we could just wave them a wistful goodbye and carry on as normal.
9§ And then there are those – only a few – who think we’d be better off if Scotland did leave the UK; that this
marriage of nations has run its course and it needs a divorce.
10§ Now, today I want to take on all these views: the idea we’d be better off without Scotland; the idea that this
makes no difference to the rest of the UK; and the idea that, however much we might care, we in England, Wales
and Northern Ireland can have no voice in this debate because we don’t have a vote. All of the above are wrong.
11§ We would be deeply diminished without Scotland. This matters to all of our futures, and everyone in the UK
can have a voice in this debate. I want to make this case by putting forward what, to me, are the 4 compelling
reasons why the United Kingdom is stronger with Scotland within it.
12§ The first is our connections with each other. Over 3 centuries we have lived together, worked together and
frankly we’ve got together: getting married, having children, moving back and forward across our borders. Such is
the fusion of our bloodlines that my surname goes back to the West Highlands and, by the way, I am as proud of my
Scottish heritage as I am of my English or my Welsh heritage.
13§ The name Cameron might mean ‘crooked nose’, but the clan motto is ‘let us unite’, and that is exactly what our
islands and our nations have done. Today, 800,000 Scots live elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and more than
400,000 people who were born in the rest of the UK now live in Scotland. And there are millions of people who do
35
business over the border every single day, like the farmers in Lincolnshire who grow some of the barley that’s used
in Scotch whisky.
14§ The United Kingdom is an intricate tapestry; millions of relationships woven tight over more than 3 centuries.
That’s why for millions of people there is no contradiction in being proud of your Scottishness, your Englishness,
your Britishness – sometimes all at once. Now some say that none of this would change with independence, that
these connections would stay as strong as ever. But the fact is all these connections, whether it’s business or
personal, they are eased and strengthened by the institutional framework of the United Kingdom.
15§ When the Acts of Union were passed, the role of the state was limited to things like defense, taxes and property
rights. Since then the state has transformed beyond recognition and our institutions – they have grown together like
the roots of great trees, fusing together under the foundations of our daily lives.
16§ You don’t need a customs check when you travel over the border; you don’t have to get out your passport out at
Carlisle; you don’t have to deal with totally different tax systems and regulations when you trade; you don’t have to
trade in different currencies.
17§ Our human connections – our friendships, relationships, business partnerships – they are underpinned because
we are all in the same United Kingdom, and that is number 1 reason why we are stronger together.
18§ The second is our prosperity. Some people look at the United Kingdom only in terms of debit and credit
columns, tax and spend, and how that gets split between our 4 nations. But that completely misses the bigger picture.
This is a world that has been through massive economic storms, where economic competition is heating up as never
before, where we have to work harder than ever just to make a living.
19§ And in that world of uncertainty, we are quite simply stronger as a bigger entity. An open economy of 63
million people; we’re the oldest and most successful single market in the world, and with one of the oldest and most
successful currencies in the world. That stability is hugely attractive for investors. Last year we were the top
destination for foreign direct investment in Europe. That is a stamp of approval on our stability and I would not want
to jeopardise that.
20§ But let me be clear. The central part of my economic argument for the UK is not about what we’d lose if we
pulled apart, but about what we could gain in this world if we stay together. This government has set out a long-term
economic plan for Britain: getting behind enterprise, dealing with our debts, a plan to give the people of this country
peace of mind and security for the future.
21§ And it’s not just a plan; it is a vision. The United Kingdom as the big European success story of this century –
moving from an island sinking under too much debt, too much borrowing, too much taxation to a country that is
dynamic, exporting, innovating, creating. And Scotland is right at the heart of that vision. Why? Well, I could give
you the list of the Scottish strengths, the historic universities like Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow and St Andrews;
the great industries, from food processing to financial services, from ship-building to science. But it’s not about
36
Scotland’s strengths as some sort of bolt-on extra. It’s about what we, the constituent parts of the United Kingdom,
can achieve together – the power of collaboration. It is there in our past.
22§ When the Scottish enlightenment met the industrial revolution, intellectual endeavour and commercial might
combined to shape global economic ideas. And that power of collaboration is there today. Together we’re stronger at
getting out there and selling our products to the world.
23§ Take Scotch whisky. Whether I’m in India or China, there is barely a meeting abroad when I don’t bang the
drum for whisky abroad. Now, of course, the First Minister fights hard for those deals too, but the clout we have as a
United Kingdom gives us a much better chance of getting around the right tables, bashing down trade barriers,
getting deals signed. And the result: Scotch whisky adds £135 to the UK’s balance of payments every single second.
24§ And together we’re stronger to lead in the industries of the future. Take green energy. We have the wind and the
waves of Scotland, decades of North Sea experience in Aberdeen and, with the rest of the UK, a domestic energy
market of tens of millions of people to drive and support these new industries. 2 years ago we set up the Green
Investment Bank. Based in Edinburgh, it’s invested across the United Kingdom, helping a Scottish distillery to fit
sustainable biomass boilers, financing a new energy centre at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge. This is what
happens when we collaborate.
25§ We have come through the great recession together: our deficit down by a third; our economy growing; our
exports to China doubled. And I believe we stand a much, much better chance of building a prosperous future
together.
26§ Now, the third reason we’re stronger together is our place in the world. Together, we get a seat at the UN
Security Council, real clout in NATO and Europe, the prestige to host events like the G8. Together we’ve got the
finest armed forces on our planet. I think of the fighter pilots originally operating from RAF Lossiemouth who flew
sorties over Libya; the legendary Scottish titles now part of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, like the Black Watch
and the Highlanders.
27§ I think of the shipyards on the Forth and Clyde, where – alongside shipyards in the rest of the UK – they are
building the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, launching this year to secure the seas and to keep us safe.
28§ Now to some all this might sound like national vanity. It’s the view that, if the UK split up and our role in the
world shrank, would that really matter so much. But this is a country that earns its living through its international
ties with millions of our citizens living abroad. When ships are ambushed on lawless seas, that hits our trade. When
the middle class in China is set to grow by millions a year that presents huge opportunities for our jobs back home
here in the UK. The world shapes us, so our place in the world – that really matters.
29§ And make no mistake: we matter more as a United Kingdom – politically, militarily, diplomatically and
culturally too. And our reach – our reach is about so much more than military might; it’s about our music, our film,
our TV, our fashion. The UK is the soft power superpower. You get teenagers in Tokyo and Sydney listening to
Emeli Sandé. You get people in Kazakhstan and Taiwan watching BBC exports like Sherlock; there’s a good
37
example. Written by a Scot a hundred years ago, played by an Englishman today and created for TV by a Scotsman.
The World Service, transmitting to hundreds of millions. Famously Aung San Suu Kyi has said it helped her through
her long years of detention, saying, ‘Everywhere I’ve been, the BBC has been with me.’ And the BBC itself,
founded by a Scotsman.
30§ My wife, Samantha, is an ambassador for the British Fashion Council and she sees and raves about the
international impact of our fashion, helped along massively by Scottish designers like Christopher Kane and
Jonathan Saunders. Sometimes we can forget just how big our reputation is – that the world over the letters ‘UK’
stand for unique, brilliant, creative, eccentric, ingenious. We come as a brand – and a powerful brand. Separating
Scotland out of that brand would be like separating the waters of the River Tweed and the North Sea. If we lost
Scotland, if the UK changed, we would rip the rug from our own reputation. The fact is we matter more in the world
if we stay together.
31§ These are all, I believe, compelling practical reasons for the United Kingdom to stick together. But, pounds and
pence, institutional questions – that’s not really what it’s about for me. It’s about the slave who escaped his master
after the American Revolution because he was offered liberty and land by the British crown. In gratitude, he named
himself this: British Freedom. It’s about Lord Lovat on the beach on D-Day, the bagpipes playing as his brigade
landed ashore. It’s about HMS Sheffield, HMS Glasgow, HMS Antrim, HMS Glamorgan – grey ships ploughing
through those grey seas for 8,000 miles to the Falkland Islands – and for what? For freedom. Because this is a
country that has never been cowed by bullies and dictators. This is a country that stands for something. And this,
really, is why I’m standing here today: our shared values. Freedom. Solidarity. Compassion. Not just overseas, but at
home.
32§ In this country, we don’t walk on by when people are sick, when people lose work, when people get old. I know
when you talk about an Englishman, a Welshman, a Scotsman, a Northern Irishman, it might sound like the
beginning of a bad joke, but it’s actually how we started our NHS, our welfare system, our state pension system.
And these values, they’re not trapped in the pages of a history book – they’re live. When the people of Benghazi
were crying out for help, when a girl in Pakistan was shot for wanting an education, when children around the world
are desperate for food or for aid, we don’t walk on by.
33§ And let’s be clear. Our values are not just a source of pride for us; they are a source of hope for the world. In
1964, Nelson Mandela stood in the dock in the Pretoria Supreme Court. He was making the case for his life, against
apartheid, and in that speech he invoked the example of Britain. He said, ‘I have great respect for British political
institutions, and for the country’s system of justice.’ He said, ‘I regard the British Parliament as the most democratic
institution in the world.’ Our Parliament, our laws, our way of life – so often, down the centuries, the UK has given
people hope. We’ve shown that democracy and prosperity can go hand in hand; that resolution is found not through
the bullet, but the ballot box. Our values are of value to the world. In the darkest times in human history there has
been, in the North Sea, a light that never goes out. And if this family of nations broke up, something very powerful
and very precious the world over would go out forever.
38
34§ So there is a moral, economic, geopolitical, diplomatic and yes – let’s say it proudly – emotional case for
keeping the United Kingdom together. But still, however strongly we feel, we can be a reticent nation. It can seem
vulgar to fly the flag. Some people have advised me to stay out of this issue, and don’t get too sentimental about the
UK. But frankly, I care too much to stay out of it. This is personal.
35§ I have an old copy of Our Island Story, my favourite book as a child, and I want to give it to my 3 children, and
I want to be able to teach my youngest, when she’s old enough to understand, that she is part of this great,
world-beating story. And I passionately hope that my children will be able to teach their children the same; that the
stamp on their passport is a mark of pride; that together these islands really do stand for something more than the
sum of our parts; they stand for bigger ideals, nobler causes, greater values. Our brilliant United Kingdom: brave,
brilliant, buccaneering, generous, tolerant, proud – this is our country. And we built it together, brick by brick:
Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland. Brick by brick. This is our home, and I could not bear to see it torn
apart.
36§ I love this country. I love the United Kingdom and all it stands for, and I will fight with everything I have to
keep us together. And so I want to be clear to everyone listening: there can be no complacency about the result of
this referendum. The outcome is still up in the air and we have just 7 months to go: 7 months to do all we can to
keep our United Kingdom as 1; 7 months to save the most extraordinary country in history. And we must do
whatever it takes.
37§ So to everyone in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, everyone like me, who cares about the United
Kingdom, I want to say this: you don’t have a vote, but you do have a voice. Those voting, they’re our friends,
they’re our neighbours, they’re our family. You do have an influence. So, get on the phone, get together, email,
tweet, speak; let the message ring out from Manchester to Motherwell, from Pembrokeshire to Perth, from Belfast to
Bute, from us to the people of Scotland. Let the message be this: we want you to stay. Think of what we’ve done
together, what we can do together, what we stand for together.
38§ Team GB. The winning team in world history. Let us stick together for a winning future too. Thank you.
39