Scottish independence: Decapitate Britain, and we kill off the greatest political union ever
The Scots are on the verge of an act of self-mutilation that will trash our global identity
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11080893/Scottish-independence-Decapitate-Britain-and-we-kill-off-the-greatest-political-union-ever.html
The Telegraph, 08 September 2014
_________________________________________________________________________________
With global attention pinpointed on the UK's Scotland, it was only a matter of time before the British Boris Johnson asserted forth his position on the subject. To introduce the piece, Johnson emphasizes its severity with a most definitely extreme and far-fetched idea: "In just 10 days' time we could all be walking around like zombies."Then, he transitions into the consequences, those primarily directed towards British financial and moral ties to Scotland, emphasizing the topic's asperity by relating it to the American revolution--Scotland is not a colony of Britain but a piece of it. Johnson takes this idea one step further through its personification. Imagine the UK as a person, he says. Take Scotland from it and you would have decapitated the nations, scalped them perhaps. After implanting such a horrific image into his audience's head, Johnson elaborates upon the effectiveness, punctuality, and beauty of British culture. He argues that losing Scotland would take away part of their prevalent fame, as many of their global popularity can be attributed to magnificent Scottish scientists and inventors who capitalized upon British utilities. Johnson finalizes his stance with brief conclusion statements that idealize the current state of the modern UK.\
Johnson's central contention in this piece is not obscured or in any way subtle: Scottish independence would ultimately lead to detriment. Much of his support is derived from his excessive use of emotional appeal and historical events. Johnson makes several references to the companionship developed between Britain and Scotland through Act of Union of 1707 and the strength of their relationship by relating it to the American colonies in 1776. His historical dependence for arguments is reassuring and illustrates the extent to which he understands the ties between the two. He appeals to logic through one statistic and one geographical analysis, but it is so insignificant in comparison to his appeal to pathos that it is a bit overwhelmed. With a deliberate focus upon emotions, Johnson exercises the use of metaphors, a "call-to-arms" type of optimism ("Britain, British, Britishness: these are precious terms, and they stand for something wonderful across the world"), and their shared lifestyles.
Reading this article, I feel as though Johnson puts too much of an emphasis upon his emotional appeal, and that seems to take away from his central idea. His lack of logical support makes some of his arguments and claims empty and perhaps even obsolete. For example, he talks about Salmond's campaign and how it isn't "really asking people to say 'yes' to Scotland's success; they are asking them to say 'no' to one of the oldest and most successful political unions in history." In what way, Johnson, is it the most successful political union in history? If this statement were true, they would not be voting for their independence. I personally want to see some sturdy evidence, maybe in the form of statistics or history. The effect of this argument, despite the fact I may agree or disagree with it, is lacking. I suppose it works in a similar manner as an excessive use of humor in an argument: too much emotional appeal really takes away from the central contention. With my knowledge on the subject and Johnson's addition, nothing has changed in my approach to solving this conflict.
ReplyDeleteI commented on Gavin's, Mckenzie's, Joe's, and Jim's pundit posts.
DeleteI like that your guy is straightforward about his information; it is a trait that makes writing easy to understand, and also more enjoyable. I don't think you give his appeal to logos enough credit - you mentioned his points about Scotland being innovative and successful thanks to England's influences; isn't that a pretty logical argument for why staying with England was a good thing? Something to ponder...
ReplyDeleteI had a large rant about how I support the guy's ideas, how it would likely be detrimental, and how little time was given to consider the full impact of what separating Scotland would imply, but I forgot to sign in first and copy so all of that spiel is gone, probably for the better. Now on to the important stuff that I said (still have to retype). I see his emotional appeals and I can see how you'd think them strong and overshadowing the others, but his logical appeal is undeniably there from my perspective. I did sense a lack of credibility appeals there, or they may have just been overshadowed by what you saw as overuse of emotional appeals. Either way, the article was a fun read and so was your analysis.
ReplyDelete