This week, BlackLab is going to tentatively dip its
toes into the murky waters of constitutional politics, namely the imminent
Scottish independence referendum, which I’ve watched with interest from
overseas.
The issue of Scottish independence from the United
Kingdom is a fascinating and multi-layered debate. Now I’m not sufficiently au
fait with
the socio-economic or political intricacies of the debate to get involved in a
treatise about them, but from a branding perspective, I think it’s worthy of
devoting some thoughts to the issue. Importantly, I want this to remain a blog
that can interest those who are not close to the Scottish debate.
Plus, having looked at numerous industries and the
not-for -profit sector, it seems only fair at this juncture to turn attention
to political PR and cultural branding. It will be a superficial overview,
because I’m in the process of moving house and arranging a wedding, so as I’m
sure you can imagine, my attention is somewhat distracted. And so to Scotland.
Scottish-ness: branding and identity
I’ve often thought that at the heart of good
branding and public relations is a process of definition. Companies and
organizations need to define clearly what they are, what they do, what benefits
they can bring and what they stand for, before they can successfully
communicate themselves to their target audiences. If they are vague or unclear
about these things, communication can become muddled, and audiences will be
unclear about all of the above.
It seems to me that quite a big feature of what’s
happening in Scotland revolves around this process. Yes, there are extremely
important political and economic arguments in play, but it’s impossible to
ignore the cultural and emotional elements that form such a large part of the
debate.
Scotland, like its sibling nations in the UK, Wales
and Northern Ireland, has always had an immensely strong identity. We’ll
address England and the UK as a whole shortly. Besides the industrial and
economic influences that Scotland has historically gifted the Union, its
cultural identity has perhaps, above all else, defined it. You don’t need to
think too hard about typically Scottish things: the saltire flag, whisky, the
Highlands, kilts, bagpipes, haggis neaps and tatties, shortbread, Robbie Burns,
the Flower of Scotland, John Logie Baird – the father of television, Sir Chris
Hoy – the multi-Gold medal winning Olympian. The list goes on.
Now I can hear many of you groaning that these are
clichés that paint a stereotypical picture of Scotland. You’re absolutely
right. Nevertheless, they combine to represent a cultural identity that is
instantly recognizable worldwide. In this sense, Scotland is a great brand, and
it’s no wonder that many Scots ask why the country shouldn’t proudly stand
independently. After all, it has done a job that’s second-to-none in defining
itself positively.
Moreover, Scottish identity / branding can also be
aptly described by what it isn’t. Scotland is different. It is different to Wales
and Northern Ireland, but most significantly, it isn’t England. The friendly
sporting rivalry between Scots and English puts this in stark relief. There is
little the Scots like better than getting one over the Auld Enemy in a game of
football or rugby, and passions run high. And equally, the sanguine and
otherwise insouciant English are roused by the rivalry, and love to beat their
neighbours north of the border.
This difference, for all these nations, is very
important and could prove to be very significant both for Scotland, England and
the UK, whatever the outcome of the imminent referendum.
The UK’s problem is a branding problem
Conversely, when considering the Scottish question,
the United Kingdom arguably suffers from a rather vague sense of itself and its
definition. It’s too easily confused with England and Englishness, which must
be irritating to the UK’s other nations, to say the least.
This is because England is the dominant partner in
the Union, in terms of population size, area, wealth, and historically is the
seat of the power-base in London. However, in spite of this historical
dominance, is the UK’s branding as clear as Scotland’s? Indeed, has England’s
very functional dominance of the Union detrimentally affected the UK’s own identity?
I’ve outlined already how strong Scotland’s
identity / branding is, in both positive and negative paradigms. I’m just not
sure that the UK has an equivalent strength of cultural identity. And I say
this as an ex-pat Englishman, born in London and bred in Essex.
Yes, of course England has a pretty good brand. In
no particular order we’ve got Shakespeare, The Beatles, the Stones and Bowie.
We’ve got the 1966 World Cup winning team. We’ve got Wordsworth and the Lake
District. We’ve got John Constable, Damien Hirst, Benjamin Britten, Edward
Elgar, Savile Row tailoring, roast beef and Yorkshire pudding, and the
inimitable John Bull and the English Bulldog. The list of English stereotypes
and clichés goes on.
Nevertheless, what people often consider to be some
of the most powerful signifiers of Englishness are nothing of the sort. The
Royals, besides coming from a European family, the Saxe-Coburgs, represent the
very Union that is under scrutiny. They constitute a signifier of Britain and
Britishness, not exclusively Englishness. Our glorious recent history in the
twentieth century’s two world wars owe a debt not only to England, but to the
British, whichever country they are from in the Union, plus our allies in the
Commonwealth and across the pond in the USA. Just these two important, albeit
hackneyed examples, show how England is too easily confused with Britain and
other partners.
This very fact perhaps presents an argument for
maintaining the union, and for Scotland to say “no” to independence, because,
in the words of the “no” campaign, we are “better together.”
What is more interesting is what it would mean for the UK if Scotland decides to go its separate way. There is perhaps an anxiety
at the heart of the UK “brand.” Once again, I make no excuses for being
superficial here, and I’m not the only one.
Today Sky News pointed out in some of its reports
that if Scotland were to become independent, it would need to establish a
panoply of national cultural signifiers or for want of a better phase, branding
tools. Yet there seems to be quite a lot of agreement on what these might be.
To give two examples, the flag would be the saltire (the blue and white of the
St.Andrew cross). The national anthem would be “Flower of Scotland.” These are
easily identifiable. Why? Because Scotland’s brand and its branding tools have
always been strong.
Can the same be said for the remainder of the UK?
How would the flag of the UK look without Scotland? Nobody seems to be quite
sure at the moment, though it’s fun to speculate. What would the national
anthem be? “Land of Hope and Glory”? Seems a bit too much of a throwback to the
British Empire, and therefore an anachronism. What about Blake’s “Jerusalem”?
Oh no. That’s a paean to “England’s green and pleasant land” and therefore not
inclusive enough as it will alienate the Welsh and the Northern Irish.
See, the concept of the UK, or rather the Branding
of Britishness, is arguably a bit of a conundrum. I for one would be sad to see
Scotland go it alone, as I value the cultural and emotional resonance it gifts
to the UK. To be honest, I think the UK / Britain would be culturally poorer
without it, and its branding would suffer as a result. But that’s just one
English exile’s view from afar, and I would be foolish to predict the result of
the big vote. It’s just interesting food for thought, and fun to roll these
ideas around in this British / English brain of mine.
