A A critical discourse analysis is an analysis that has discourse, text and language as its central focus, by which in this paper, was the rhetoric of the nationalist parties in campaigning for the 1997 devolution referenda. The rhetoric and language used by political parties during the campaigns were seen as a significant driving force in steering public opinion. The ability of parties to lead conversations and shape the political agenda demonstrates the powerful force of which they held in national politics. The debate on devolution presented impassioned arguments for what kind of country people wished Scotland or Wales to be. This discourse analysis explores the underlying motives behind the different arguments and sought to identify the different themes from examining people’s language. This discourse analysis sought to understand not what was said literally, but what was implied; in order to identify those underlying themes which were the true objectives of one’s argument. After examining various nationalist propaganda, this paper has identified those themes from the types of arguments which were presented across the mainstream nationalist parties of Scotland and Wales. This paper outlines that these themes contributed towards (amongst other external factors at the time) the referendum results in achieving the outcome it did. The influential abilities of these themes made a significant impact in moulding public discourse and stood as the central basis for how people reacted to the notion of devolution. Hegemonic  Discontinuing English Domination English domination has been prevalent throughout British history, evident from the first union formed between Wales and England, then Scotland and England, to eventually forming Great Britain. This hegemonic grip had not ceased and England continued to be the dominant and bourgeois entity of the United Kingdom through to the 21st century. As with any capital city, there is an overall prerogative of which it experiences, and as the capital of the UK is also the capital of England, naturally, institutions and structures would be swayed in favour of England. The discourse presented by the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) in their manifesto, provides a clear indication that they acknowledge the disadvantage Scotland receives from this dynamic:‘Scotland has a part to play in the building of our continent, and yet we are not permitted to speak for ourselves. Scotland has a home to offer to those from many backgrounds and much to give on the world stage and yet we are living in the shadow of our neighbour, who speaks for us but not of us. And Scotland has the skills and resources to be free, but is denied its democratic right to self-government’[1]In this case, the SNP’s manifesto implied a position of powerlessness and containment by the grips of the Westminster system. Presenting the information in this manner signals a hierarchical structure in the constitutional make-up of the UK, where Scotland is subsequently at the bottom. Their choice of language to define Scotland as ‘us’ implies a strong and unified community in the face of a joint threat, which gives further severance from England, who is defined as ‘our neighbour’. The disadvantaged position the SNP portrayed, constructs Westminster an autocratic regime ruling Scotland – not reflecting Scottish priorities. In terms of devolution, it hints at the need for a constitutional change to adjust the status quo, and unless otherwise, means a continuation of this power structure. This rhetoric demonstrated not only resentment for English dominance, but dissatisfaction and growing distrust of the Westminster system, operating only in the interests of England and driving UK domestic policy in line with those interests. Defending Economic Interests‘It’s Scotland’s oil’, headed by the SNP for their 1974 general election campaign, was a reactionary offensive from the discovery of oil in the North Sea. It was to legitimise the economic case for SNP’s proposal for Scottish independence, however, formed the backdrop to understanding the role of English dominance within the devolution debate. “Scotland is an energy rich nation (…) [and] our wealth is being squandered by Westminster”.[2] Westminster and England were often used synonymously by the SNP to construct both terms as a foreign-power entity, separate to Scotland. Othering in this way, constructed the Westminster system as an external partner of Scotland, rather than the system at the centre of a union of four countries of which Scotland is part. The real outrage, however, with the North Sea oil reserves was that the revenue created from its extraction would not significantly enhance Scotland, and the majority of its profits were sent to England: ‘Scotland has the potential to be a rich and vibrant economy, yet we export our wealth south of the border’.[3] This characterizes the relationship between England and Scotland as one of exploitation, where Scotland’s resources are drained at the expense of being part of the United Kingdom. While the SNP construct this propaganda to support its goal of independence, this discourse has connotations to the devolution debate – which was outlined in their manifesto, as it encourages people to question whether they wish to alter Scotland and England’s relationship in its current form, forming a new constitutional settlement. Institutionalised Marginalisation The hegemony of England within the UK had meant that the interests of Scotland and Wales have often been overlooked to ensure the needs of England were met. With 84.2% of the UK population residing in England,[4] it would be expected that there would be a level of marginalisation embedded into the British political system, so thus, this paper coins the term ‘institutionalised marginalisation’ to describe this sub-genre. A significant driving force for devolution was the belief of being wholly unrepresented and ignored through the current parliamentary system, as the UK’s internal focus was too much on the interests of England. This was illustrated by the rhetoric in the Newsnight devolution special for whether to devolve power to Scotland and Wales:‘There is discontent for many reasons, but particularly over the last twenty years that feeling of anything [Scotland] actually voted on or believed in, as a nation, that sense [of] a different set of values to (…) the rest of the [UK] – has been completely ignored. A terrible feeling of frustration that all their wishes and beliefs are simply cast aside. The poll tax, VAT on fuel, everything that was completely against anything the Scots had voted for, and I think we now see [devolution] as a real chance to bring accountability and responsibility back home to Scotland’.[5]The instances of the poll tax being introduced under Thatcher, and the VAT on fuel, presented examples of Scotland accepting the authority of a government it, collectively, did not vote for. This point of Scotland holding a separate set of values, links in with the sub-genre in this paper of defending liberal values, where England’s hegemony has meant that Scotland’s left-wing political leanings had often been ignored. This explains how Scotland had attributed a left-wing nationalism, in order to protect the progressive and liberal values it held. The significance of using the word ‘home’ in this context, also refers to the sub-genre of this paper – taking back control, where Scotland would control its own affairs as it did once before it entered into a political union with England. There was a common reference in the devolution debate to ‘modernising the constitution’, which was framed in the context of a shared responsibility to do so, “we need to” and “we should” were often mentioned. Collocates of these words are others like, “obligation” and “duty” demonstrating a clear persuasive strategy to incline people to accept devolution, along with the deontic modality[6] of this language. This argumentation strategy was used to appeal to the responsibility of the Scottish people themselvesto change the constitutional structure of the UK to benefit the lives of the people in Scotland. This language suggests there is a level of urgency to act, as to ignore this plea would have negative consequences.  Protecting Culture Much of the discourse presented by advocates for Welsh devolution, particularly from Plaid Cymru, was identifying Englishness as a threat to Welsh culture. The Celtic identity was framed as requiring protection to prevent further erosion due to the domination of an ethnocentric anglicised influence. The cultural nationalism of Wales holds the Welsh language as the centrepiece of Welsh culture, especially shown from Plaid Cymru, Wales’ biggest nationalist party during the devolution campaigning: “the defence of the Welsh language has been [Plaid Cymru’s] chief emphasis while awaiting devolution”.[7] Thus, the dilution of the Welsh language was implied as a threat to the Welsh culture in its entirety. The Plaid Cymru manifesto sought further legislative protections for the Welsh language and described necessary action for the current situation using terms such as “protect”, “defend” and “support”. This linguistical framing was designed to construct the Welsh language as under invasion from a foreign entity – namely, English influence, in a rouse to galvanise support for their language proposals, but alternatively, to view Westminster in a negative context.[8] Conserving Cultural IdentityIt is clear that Welsh nationalists identified themselves in relation to their language. This was how, particularly, the mainstream nationalistic movement of Wales seemed to centre on a cultural nationalism. But through the centuries of being in a union with England, had caused significance erosion to the Celtic identity, from less people speaking Welsh, to the dissolvement of Welsh institutions, such as the Church of Wales, educational and legal systems, and so forth. The historic oppression that Wales had seen, formed the backdrop for the willingness to defend Welsh culture from English domination and support English erasure.[9] The rhetoric surrounding the campaign discourse suggests that only a Welsh assembly would take the challenges that face the Celtic identity seriously and only devolution would be the suitable mechanism to ensure it is maintained as a dominant identity in Wales. On the contrary to the Welsh, the Scottish identity was collocated on the basis of being antithetical to everything the Conservative party represented. The discourse around the Scottish identity was presented in terms of values and principles rather than a distinct language and traditions; “[The SNP] have a secure identity as Scotland’s party, based on our ideals of enterprise, compassion and democracy”.[10] Wales’ concern for the erosion of the Welsh language does also stem from the frustration of English dominance and otherwise ensuring Welsh grassroots organisations have a bigger voice in running the affairs of Wales:“[Devolution] is our opportunity to seize the Welsh political agenda”.[11]In this context Plaid Cymru refers to Wales using ‘our’, appealing to a majority view, which is in favour of devolution. The references during the 1997 Plaid Cymru conference are routinely vague, using terms such as ‘majority’, ‘many’ and ‘most’. Such terms mask the true number of those in favour, which may be because the true figures are not enough to prove real support for devolution or be considered representative of Wales as a whole. These terms also work as intensifying strategies, a way of strengthening one’s argument by using certain language. Either way, Plaid Cymru appear to generalise their views to that of the nation as a whole, and do not acknowledge evidence that may suggest otherwise.  Taking Back Control A central argumentation strategy for legislating for devolved power to Scotland and Wales was the idea of bringing sovereignty back to the people. This notion of returning power and control, suggests a governance structure that was stolen and taken unjustifiably. It strikes a tone of unwarranted action from which the only way forward would be to return powers that are rightfully Wales and Scotland’s:‘Submerging from view, for almost three centuries the independent nation of Scotland. (…) We can begin a process that will result in the restoration of self-confidence and the creation of a modern democracy in the mainstream of European life’.[12]The topos[13] of this argument portrays the need for constitutional change in order to fix the problem – by which devolution would be the advised solution. Furthermore, implying the status quo as inadequate and no longer fit for purpose, encourages a resolve to produce not minimal action but a significant response. The Newsnight special on devolution, saw Mari James from the ‘Yes for Wales’ campaign insisting: “we should trust the people of Wales” when referring to Wales’ right to make their own decisions through a proposed Welsh assembly. This faith-baring language suggests that claims of a Welsh assembly most likely to be an inefficient institution are unfounded. This appeals to the responsibility of the voter to vote for devolution on the principle of democracy, and subsequently a right Scottish and Welsh people are owed but denied. Often in the Newsnight debate, politicians also made reference to the other countries who have implemented devolution, in support for the UK to adopt it. Using the persuasive strategy – social proof[14]in this way was used to prove that because other nations had implemented devolution, the UK should follow. Better GovernmentThe calls for devolution centred heavily on the beneficial impact of smaller government, better reflecting the priorities and issues that Scotland and Wales are presented with. The discussion which was regularly referred to during the referendum, was denouncing this ‘one size fits all’ approach usually formulated by a Westminster government; which lacked a tailored approach to the specific needs of all regions within the UK. There was often an English-centric bias when formulating policy at Westminster – economic policies in particular – towards the south-east of England. The arguments for devolved government were also extended towards fixing a conflict of interest between competing regions within the UK. A devolved Scottish and Welsh government could formulate policies that suit their own economies that would otherwise be damaging to another regional economy in England if it were to be legislated UK-wide. This type of argument for devolution linked in with the irritation of English domination and the construction of Westminster as wholly English.[15] The frustration from the lack of better regional policies for Scotland and Wales was evident in the devolution debate: “There is still a 17% prosperity gap between Wales and the rest of the UK. (…) There are great problems in Wales that have not been addressed, and I have to say, the reason I think they haven’t been addressed is that we haven’t managed to develop a coherent long-term economic strategy and that’s the failure of (…) the fact we have been buffeted by successive English-Secretaries of State for Wales over the last few years and have got absolutely nowhere [with their activities]”.[16]This style of argumentation is to make an assertion that a particular style of governance is presumed to eliminate problems. This discourse presents the public both with a problem and a solution – which was constructed to lead them specifically to it – in this case, devolution. The way in which this is constructed portrays the current style of governance as defunct and no longer fit for purpose. This proceeds to suggest the current system to be inadequate and that a modernised and progressive type of political system, if instated, would be beneficial for the future of Wales. Constructing a negative discourse around the current system encourages people to believe that governmental restructuring is the only viable option to develop long-term economic strategies. This argument is somewhat fallacious, as rather than simply improving and building on current regionalised economic policies and making them more efficient, it was implied that only significant change can come with transforming their whole system of governance.  Constructing Westminster as a Foreign Power Often during the devolution debate, both the SNP and Plaid Cymru had used ‘othering’ as an impersonalisation strategy[17] when referring to Westminster, to describe this political system as though it was an external partner or a foreign power. It was often portrayed as a hegemonic colonial power, where England was the ‘motherland’ and the remaining countries its dependencies, rather than a political union of four countries of which Scotland and Wales are each part. Westminster was often framed as a totalitarian regime who ruled illegitimately and is unrepresentative of the Scottish and Welsh people. The SNP regularly implied a separateness between Scotland and Westminster, and by constructing Westminster as this separate entity, reinforces the notion that Scotland is not conjoined politically or ideologically to the British state. It implied that the UK is merely a political contract between two separate states and not a cultural identity of which one identifies oneself. There is a further notion that the Westminster system was an undemocratic institution, where at the expense of Scotland and Wales and often ignoring their will, provides a government favourable to the region of England (south-east to be specific), where the majority of the British population reside. The undemocratic facet of the Westminster system will be elaborated further in the sub-genre improved democracy. Association with the Conservative PartyAnother aspect that was a commonality in the devolution debate was framing Westminster and the ‘Tories’ as metonyms and using both terms interchangeably – when in fact the former is a political system and the latter a political ideology. The nationalist parties would conjoin ‘the Tories’ with ‘Westminster’ using deixis terms: “and”, “at” and “in” to suggest a concrete relationship between both words. However, by doing so, also creates the impression of a political system that is fixated towards representing only one political faction within the UK – the Conservative party. This is a successful argumentation strategy to conjoin two terms together as if they were the same, when in reality they are unconnected and have minimal relation to one another. The previous eighteen years of Conservative rule prior to the devolution referendum produced great upheaval and protest from both Scotland and Wales, particularly concerning the poll tax and VAT on fuel – which were considered very unpopular in either region. Most notably, the number of votes there were for the Conservatives in Scotland and Wales did not amount for a Conservative government, by which Thatcher and Major minority ruled both countries. Thus, to use the Tories and the Westminster system interchangeably was a successful tactic as the hatred for the Tories was merely transferred towards the Westminster system.This strategy of coining a relationship between the two terms was used to construct the Westminster system as ruling undemocratically, akin to the past eighteen years of Tory rule in Scotland and Wales. Notably, the goal of both the SNP and Plaid Cymru was independence, so while this strategy worked to encourage an independence consideration, it had a binary use, as it was used to campaign for devolution. It was used to appeal to those who were still angry from the effects of Thatcherism and wished to lessen Conservative influence in Scotland to the minimalist degree.[18] However, this idea had produced a paradox, as Scotland was seeking better representation through devolution, but yet the Labour government who legislated for a new Scottish parliament had a cabinet full of Scottish members –Brown, Cook, Irvine, Darling, Dewar, Browne and even Blair himself; “we thought we wanted a parliament, but actually we just wanted rid of the Tories” (reference). This further supports this sub-genre’s point – that it was the association of the Conservative party with the Westminster system that really persuaded a significant amount of people for devolution. Association with EnglandMentioned earlier in this chapter, English dominance within British politics has been prevalent from its role as ‘motherland’ of the United Kingdom. A consequence of England’s unequal and disproportionate leverage in Westminster, has led to a strong association of Westminster as merely an English hub for English interests. It is this mindset that was hard to break amongst Scottish and Welsh people, whose regional identity directly conflicted with the political system that is Westminster. The nationalist parties exploited this contradiction and used it to gain support for the devolution proposals:‘A Westminster [system] which is skewed towards the priorities of the south-east of England, has thwarted a full transformation of our economy’.[19]The message which is implied here is less coy than others have been, describing the failure of the Welsh economy lying plainly with Westminster’s disproportionate focus on south-east England’s prosperity. The word ‘thwarted’ collocates with terms like ‘prevent’, ‘obstruct’ and ‘hinder’ to describe the south-east of England’s success at the expense of Wales. The negative discourse around England not only directed anger at England during the referenda campaigns, but also at Westminster, from its strong association with English interests. This subsequently persuaded more people in Wales that devolution was a chance to focus more on the state of Welsh affairs and improve its prosperity.  Defending Liberal Values Much of the discourse presented by the SNP affirm their socially progressive attitudes and ultimately, their opposition to the Conservative party. The SNP almost wholly identify themselves as being everything Margaret Thatcher was not, to the same degree of identifying as Scottish. Protecting Scotland from right-wing influence – namely the Tories, and resisting the influential sphere of English domination, was an underlying theme for what persuaded some to vote for devolution. Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, sold the argument for devolution by indicating that constitutional reform was necessary to combat the influence of the English, or more specifically, the Tories. Without passing devolution would otherwise mean allowing the Tories to be socially constitutive[20] and shape ‘Scottish morals’ in line with their ideology.“Anything is better than complete control from London. More than anything else, the Scottish parliament will allow the people of Scotland to see that we are quite capable of governing ourselves (…) and [realise] the ability to prevent the negative impact of Westminster [influence]”.[21]The discourse was framed to view Westminster as a threat to Scottish values and societal cohesion. The language used describes Scotland as under attack from Westminster’s deliberate interference and therefore, action is required to avert its effects. By evaluating the status quo in negative terms “anything is better”, encourages the voter to support or at least consider some degree of constitutional change. The prosodic intention of ‘anything’ was to imply a situation that is awful where anything will be an improvement. The discourse of this argument others the English as a foreign entity and insinuates an invasion into Scottish territory with ideological warfare as its weaponry. It also implies that English influence can only be negative and that without a degree of devolved power Scotland would be unable to combat it. There appears to be a belief here that strong links with the English threaten the future of Scottish identity and culture, and that devolution is a means of rescuing it. Improving DemocracyAn important aspect of the discourse surrounding Westminster, was the construction of it being an undemocratic political entity, with leanings towards right-wing politics. This is intertwined with the sub-genre of association with the Conservative party, as despite Scotland and Wales not by a majority, voted for the Tories under Thatcher and Major, indeed, still acquired Tory governments. By the SNP viewing this discussion from a regional perspective, alluded people to develop the rationale of Westminster as an undemocratic entity. Because Scotland did not get the government it wanted as a region, the whole Westminster system is therefore undemocratic. This attitude persisted despite being clearly known that UK governments are elected by a majority vote from the British population overall. There is a level of absurdity and fallacy to the rationale of viewing democracy on a regional basis and not nationally, as northern England have by majority usually voted for Labour in the past, but would be expected to recognise the will from the majority of people in the UK when it had acquired Tory governments. The association of England with the Tories, along with the fact that England consists of mostly Conservative constituencies, creates an impression of a Westminster system that is unfairly fixated towards a right-wing ideology. Devolution was subsequently proposed as a solution to ensuring better democratic representation in Scotland and Wales. The Rt. Hon. Des Browne MP said:“This modernisation of our constitution starts from an understanding that diversity already exists in the UK (…) What is missing is democratic accountability (…) These proposals will bring government closer to the people, replacing bureaucracy with democracy”.[22]The argumentation strategy here implies that devolution is a natural development for any sophisticated and advanced nation, as common collocates of ‘modernisation’ are “innovation” and “improvement” – positive words that suggest a beneficial transformation of something. What is notable about Des Browne’s quote is that there are mechanisms which exist to make politicians more accountable to the people besides devolution. Devolution was seen as a way to increase democracy to Scotland and Wales, when there may be other factors contributing towards the ‘democratic deficit’ of the UK other than a centralised system of government.Comparative AnalysisThe critical discourse analysis from this paper, identified the central themes that justified devolution in the 1997 devolution referenda, by examining the campaigns of the nationalist Scottish and Welsh parties. The themes were the underlying motivates from the types of arguments which were presented for why the United Kingdom should become less centralised and devolve power to Scotland and Wales. The discourse, text and language that were examined uncovered a common thread that ran along all the themes, a focus on protection and defence from an external threat. Seemingly, the domination of English culture, influence and interests were key to Scottish and Welsh nationalist discontent with the status quo. This analysis seeks to investigate why the devolution referenda produced the varying in results it – Scotland 74% for ‘Yes’; and Wales 50.3% for ‘Yes’. This analysis will examine how the types of arguments for devolution, that were made by the nationalist parties, correlated with their respective citizens, considering the type of nationalism each country had – Scotland with a left-wing nationalism; and Wales, with a cultural nationalism. This comparative analysis will determine whether the two nationalisms were compatible or incompatible with the arguments for devolution, by comparing Scotland and Wales to each other. This will provide an explanation for varying in results for Scotland and Wales, when putting the devolution into historical, cultural and nationalistic contexts.English domination struck a chord with both Scotland and Wales, whom have become accustomed to English influence and control throughout British history. The left-wing nationalism of Scotland, and the cultural nationalism of Wales, both appear to be reactionary movements in response to an oppressive era. As outlined earlier in this paper, the cultural nationalism that had formed in Wales was in response to despotism received from England from its official union in the 15th century, towards the era of industrialisation. Scotland alternatively, their nationalism was a much newer phenomenon that really cemented itself into Scotland during the tenure of Thatcher’s government in the 1980s. Both nationalisms are compatible with the argument for that justifies devolution based upon allowing Westminster to become less centralised and less dominant. There are central principles that those nationalisms stand for. A left-wing nationalism puts liberal and progressive values at the heart of its movement, and left-wing politics stands central to its principles and direction. So to have less power at Westminster, of which Scotland tends to associate was fixated towards the right-wing Tories, allows a better chance at protecting those principles in Scotland in its own parliament. That argument resonated well with the Scottish people in that regard.Cultural nationalism shares similarities, with left-wing nationalism on the idea of protecting an ideology. However, cultural nationalism surrounds the protection of culture, and to be more specific to Wales, the Welsh language. There is a growing distrust of Westminster of wanting to or being adequately able to protect its culture, so more power to control it themselves would be a priority.[1] Politics Resources. 1997. “The 1997 SNP General Election Manifesto.” The UK General Election Manifestos. Accessed August 15, 2018. http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge97/man/snp97.pdf.[2] Politics Resources. 1997. “The 1997 SNP General Election Manifesto.” p. 27[3] Politics Resources. 1997. “The 1997 SNP General Election Manifesto.” p. 6[4] Office for National Statistics. 2011. Population Estimates. Accessed September 23, 2018. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates.[5] BBC 2. 1997. Panorama special: Devolution debate – For richer or poorer, the nation decides. 10 September. Accessed August 14, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofUbAKbTeCE&ab_channel=DavidBoothroyd.[6] A discourse term referring to expressing the necessity of something.[7] “Plaid Cymru.” Times, 27 Mar. 1997, p. 12. The Times Digital Archive, http://tinyurl.galegroup.com/tinyurl/76ivw2. Accessed 23 Sept. 2018.[8] Elaborated further in, constructing Westminster as a foreign power, to produce a negative discourse around Westminster to gain support for devolution.[9] A discourse term referring to a form of exclusion or marginalisation, particularly in relation to identity[10] BBC 2. 1998. “1998 SNP Conference – Alex Salmond speech.” YouTube. Accessed September 23, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EcMYw9YGmw.[11] Heath, Tony. “Climate set for Plaid Cymru leaders to seize agenda.” Independent, 25 Sept. 1997, p. 17. The Independent Digital Archive, http://tinyurl.galegroup.com/tinyurl/76iw33. Accessed 23 Sept. 2018.[12] Politics Resources. 1997. “The 1997 SNP General Election Manifesto.” p. 6.[13] Topoi is a persuasive strategy which makes a connection between an argument and a conclusion.[14] It is an important concept in psychological studies of persuasion.[15] Further discussed in the sub-genre of Association with England – on how the south-east of England is the domineering consideration of domestic policy at Westminster.[16] BBC 2. 1997. Panorama special: Devolution debate – For richer or poorer, the nation decides. 10 September. Accessed August 14, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofUbAKbTeCE&ab_channel=DavidBoothroyd.[17] Representing a social actor as something other than human.[18] It was evident at this point in time that the chances of a Conservative revival within the near future – Scotland in particular, was exceedingly improbable.[19] Politics Resources. 1997. “The 1997 Plaid Cymru General Election Manifesto.” The UK General Election Manifestos. Accessed August 15, 2018. http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/pcymru97.htm.[20] Refers to the state of being able to influence or shape how society is st