COUPLES starting their lives together, whether married or not, often face tough financial decisions, over issues like where to call home.
If you’re very observant, you might have spotted an occasional mention in the media that there’s a wedding taking place in Windsor this weekend. Let’s all hope the happy couple won’t have to face a grilling from their bank manager anytime soon as they set up home together.
Of course, I jest. Everyone knows that Henry Charles Albert David of the House of Windsor (Harry to his pals) is getting married to Meghan Markle, and try as you might it’s hard to avoid the gossipy headlines about who’ll be attending and how much the wedding dress will cost.
If you’re like me, you’ll be finding something much more interesting to do than watching the televised fawning that accompanies such events.
Meghan and Harry will indeed face a rare dilemma about where to live, struggling to choose between Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Balmoral, Sandringham, the Palace of Holyroodhouse, Clarence House, Kensington Palace or one of the many modest wee mansions dotted around the country.
This kind of opulence stands in stark contrast to the real lives of people, especially young people, in this age of chronic inequality. Rising house prices, rip-off rents and poor standards, and a lack of social housing, combine to create housing market which is failing our whole society.
It’s an issue the Scottish Government says it wants to get an urgent grip of. But earlier this week the Housing Minister caused a bit of confusion at a Holyrood committee by misquoting what was actually in the SNP’s 2016 manifesto. Kevin Stewart denied that his party had pledged to build at least 50,000 new affordable homes, and seemed to suggest that refurbishing empty homes or buying back old council homes would count toward the target. There is a very clear difference between building new homes, which adds to the overall housing supply, and, as the Minister describes it, “delivering” affordable homes by these other methods. Bringing existing homes into the category of affordable housing is welcome, but it only changes the use of homes already built; it’s new build which actually increases the availability of housing in our society.
This contrast between the lavish homes for the entitled minority and wildly inadequate provision for the majority says a lot about the monarchy. We’re invited to ignore the inequality and focus on the celebrity culture of it all. Much the same thing happened recently when I challenged a Tory MSP’s fawning over the birth of the latest Royal baby when, at the same time, 30% of the children born across the country are born into poverty.
At Holyrood, the Greens are among the loudest voices calling for a democratic alternative to the monarchy, but highlighting the injustice they represent or departing from the inane forelock-tugging is never well received by the drooling right-wing press!
I know I’m far from alone in feeling disinterested at best, and sometimes revolted by the mixture of deference to the privileged and disregard for those left behind. Indeed, a recent poll showed that 75% of Scots aren’t interested at all in the royal wedding. It’s another reminder of why we need a media culture which focuses on the things that really matter to people.
That’s an extra reason to be concerned at the loss of 60 jobs at STV in Glasgow, which was announced this week and which led to a walk-out. It’s partly about the future of the people who will be affected directly – STV’s staff poured so much into the STV2 channel and they deserve better treatment.
It’s hard to see how STV will improve the quality of its output by sacking so many people – people whose salaries could have been covered by the ridiculous £853,000 golden hello given to its chief executive. How this sits with STV’s status as a signatory to the Scottish Business Pledge on ethical employment practices, I can’t imagine.
But it’s also about the loss to our country’s TV industry, or its capacity for journalism and cultural output, at a time when the BBC is set to launch a new Scottish channel and Glasgow is bidding to host Channel 4’s new headquarters. We cannot let slip the huge opportunity we have to build a creative centre of excellence in the west of Scotland.
Abolishing the monarchy is unlikely to happen before independence, but that shouldn’t stop us working toward a fair housing market that meets everyone’s needs affordably, or a media landscape that puts issues like that to the fore instead of obsessing about the lives of the Windsors.
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