THERE IS, I venture to state, a widespread if not general acceptance within the Yes movement that one of the positives of the 2014 referendum campaign was the normalisation of the word ‘independence’ – even if the actual concept was little examined. A term that had previously been consigned to the ideological fringe found currency in mainstream political discourse – there to remain. It might also be suggested that there was some normalisation, too, of the word ‘referendum’; and thereby of the idea of direct democracy. Again, there was little discussion of what a proper constitutional referendum should look like. And the idea of a referendum was not much linked to the wider concept of direct democracy. But it can hardly be denied that the referendum campaign had a normalising effect. I confidently contend that we are seeing a similar normalisation process in relation to other words and the ideas associated with them.

I offer three examples of terms and concepts which have only lately entered the lexicon of the debate around the constitutional issue. I also contend that the process of normalisation in these instances has been both remarkably rapid in some quarters and inexplicably slow in others. The three terms are, in no particular order, ‘unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)’; ‘colony’; and ‘liberation’.

#ScottishUDI

I have previously written, and frequently spoken, of my (pleasant) surprise when I presented my thoughts on UDI to the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group (SSRG) Conference almost exactly a year ago (29 August 2022). I had expected considerable resistance to the idea, even if the audience was too sophisticated for the all-too-common knee-jerk reaction to the term ‘UDI’ that is the product of years of conditioning. I was taken aback by the response which actually greeted my remarks.