ANYONE who watched BBC Question Time last Thursday would have been angry, disappointed, sad and almost defeated after the obvious contempt for the Scottish electorate. I have noticed that every time an SNP MP is on the panel or there is anyone sticking up for Scottish independence booing will occur.
It is obviously a result of “SNP bad” rhetoric in the UK media, and the rest of UK not really taking the time to read any further into Scottish politics.
The headlines of the past that have scarred the SNP are things like “Nicola Sturgeon – the most dangerous women in Britain” or “the SNP are here to destroy our precious Union”. What I found most interesting on Thursday night, alongside the usual “SNP not accepting referendum rhetoric”, was the apparent bitterness that London will not be getting a separate deal on Brexit.
Now, this seemed to crop up a few times during interaction with the audience and their dismissive attitude to Scotland’s predicament reeked of “if we can’t get a special deal, the Scots certainly shouldn’t”. I think this stems from London generally getting what it wanted in the past and this “revolt” against the “establishment” was reflected in the Leave vote in northern England and areas of Wales.
If the London electorate was so keen to flex their muscle and get a deal during Brexit then Sadiq Khan would have been inundated with requests for this to be the case or would have been a lot more vocal, or authoritarian, on his quest to secure this. I know this deal for London has been discussed, but Scotland having a committed political party, who has even proposed compromises on Brexit, fighting our corner has been beneficial for us but seems to be the resentment of some other areas in the UK.
This highlights two very important points. First of all, can you imagine if Labour still held most of the Scottish seats at Westminster with no voice for our Remain vote?
The electorate may have just accepted the vote; crossing fingers hoping human and workers’ rights were not going to be diluted. The very fact we have a separate party, not accountable to a superior in another parliament higher up the food chain, has worked in our favour and this could the case if Sinn Fein were in power in Northern Ireland and Plaid Cymru in Wales. The debate would be more open and less restricted.
The second point I wanted to highlight is that London could be striving towards that deal if there was a “London National Party” or even just an autonomous party not answering to a chief in Westminster or being whipped to vote in a certain way; democracy needs to be decentralised to get the best deal for all.
Going back to Question Time and its obvious flaws, which have been debated on these letters pages since The National began. The Trident incident was ignored. The programme is supposed to cover the important and pivotal political discussions of the week but it tends to just be Trump and Brexit. Although this could be deliberate attempt at just being a smoke screen to stop the public reflecting too much on the safety of Trident and stirring up that debate again.
One size does not fit all when it comes to political broadcasting like this. Perhaps a Scottish Question Time should be introduced? This could give MSPs more of a chance to have their points of view heard, and more local journalists or celebrities. Alongside the idea for the Scottish Six, maybe we should have other political shows duplicated to reflect what discussions should be happening in our communities. We should not just be campaigning for a Scottish news bulletin, but for control over these channels to be devolved prior to the next independence referendum.
Brian Finlay
Address supplied
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wild land attracts tourists who boost the economy
ONCE again Rob Gibson (Letters, January 28) demonstrates his inability to understand the value of wild land. Land which is called “wild” is nearly always so because humans cannot or will not live in it, so his concern for human fauna is misplaced.
He just can’t get his head round the fact that wild land is attractive to a certain type of tourist who contributes significantly to the local economy and therefore to those humans near such land. It also attracts people who want to live in the Highlands, where they can make a valuable contribution even if they are not strictly locals. Just because Mr Gibson cannot see past the narrow range of economic activities of which he approves does not mean there are not other ways forward.
He says wind farm development is excluded from National Parks. True, so far; but the legislation which set up our national parks is among the weakest in the world in terms of putting environment protection first. Also, wind farms are being developed within short distances of park boundaries and are wholly visible from inside the parks.
Mr Gibson complains of lack of consultation by Scottish Natural Heritage, but surely that is exactly what the agency is doing. SNH is there to serve us all, not just to give preferential treatment to the communities Mr Gibson claims to champion.
Finally, does Mr Gibson accept that we have a responsibility not to destroy the habitats of other kinds of fauna and the plants on which most of them depend?
Andrew M Fraser Inverness CAN anyone trust a word the Scottish Tory leader says these days?
Before the vote on independence she promised that voting “No means we stay in” the EU. Well that’s patently not true anymore.
Before the vote on EU membership she said that the case for Brexit was based on “lies”; that it was based on “fantasy economics” and families “couldn’t afford’ it”; and that thousands of Scottish jobs were “reliant on the exports we sell within the EU”. Now she claims it is an “opportunity”!
I’d understand if she said we would have to make the best of a bad decision, but to now claim that something that was “lies” is an “opportunity” is beyond credible.
Then after the Brexit vote she said she wanted the UK to stay in the European single market even if it meant having to accept free movement. Now she supports not being in that single market!
With council elections approaching she is attacking council tax changes she claimed only last year were her party’s policy! How can anyone trust what they would do in power with such wildly changing positions?
Not even Unionists can trust her. She was elected with the promise that the Tories would “oppose ANY attempt” for a second independence referendum. But by July she was saying any second referendum “should not be blocked”.
It’s like they arrogantly think they can say anything and the people of Scotland will just accept it.
Andrew Stuart
Glasgow
THE Wee Ginger Dug correctly points out that the EU holds all the cards in Brexit negotiations (Here’s deal on trade: we will get the best of both worlds, The National, January 28). In the Republic of Ireland, the media point out that the UK depends on the EU for 45 per cent of its exports,while the EU is dependent on the UK for only eight per cent of EU exports. Further, the UK trades more with the ROI than with all the British Commonwealth countries combined. We never hear these facts in the London and “Scottish” media about the other independent country, next door.
Councillor Tom Johnston Cumbernauld MY first reaction to Greg Russell’s report outlining development plans involving the loss of “Glasgow’s oldest bar” was “here we go again” (Elements of bar will appear in new flats, The National, January 28). We are told the pub building, possibly dating in part to medieval times, is in “too poor a condition to be retained”. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard this excuse for the destruction of some irreplaceable part of Scotland’s people’s heritage. Many countries see their demotic architectural history as an asset. Why is it so hard to convince Scots to care?
Douglas Hunter
Harestanes, Ancrum
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel