I READ Saturday’s front page splash and the associated article by Kathleen Nutt suggesting that EU citizens are threatening to leave Scotland unless the indyref is called by the end of the year. This was with dismay, firstly at the insensitivity of The National towards EU citizens in Scotland and secondly that our National appears misjudgedly to act like the News of the World in generating controversy at the expense of a part of the community of its readers. (I will declare at this point that I am married to an EU citizen, although neither of us is affiliated to EU Citizens for an Independent Scotland.)
Everyone has hopes and aspirations in life, often including plans they might have if their current situation does not work out for the best. With the uncertainty caused by EU withdrawal and the potential opportunities offered by Scottish independence, now is more than ever the time for such plans. For EU citizens at present, it is fairly obvious what plans A and B might include. But EU citizens will not be the only people to have plans – many indy-minded Scots will have plans too.
The familiar aphorism defines news as “Man bites Dog”. I would suggest that on the face of it Nutt’s story is actually “Dog bites Man”, in that EU citizens in Scotland having plans for their lives is no more news than anyone else in Scotland having plans. There should be no criticism of people having plans for their lives.
READ MORE: Why we want to leave – EU citizens fear for future without indyref2
But let us look at a deeper level of this. My wife and I have plans of all sorts. Part of my dismay at your story is that it invites those who know us to speculate that our plans might include seeking to apply pressure on Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government to declare the indyref right now by threatening to leave Scotland.
At this time, the idea that EU citizens in Scotland might be demanding that the indyref is declared immediately is divisive because it suggests that EU citizens are both immature and petulant enough to use the threat of leaving Scotland as a lever to force an indyref on their timing rather than on the Scottish Government’s timing. As a Scot-by-choice, the privilege to join in the struggle for the rebirth of Scotland is enough. If we did not trust the Scottish Government to make the right decisions, we probably would not be here. We certainly do not feel the need to nudge our government’s elbow at such a critical time.
Whatever plans EU citizens in Scotland may have, the article hangs poorly on undue prominence given to some ill-judged remarks from a representative of a special interest independence collective (which as far as I can see are not even their official position), plus two examples which do not meaningfully support the proposition that these people will leave unless indyref2 is called.
I would have preferred to see the space filled with a straightforward human interest story about several EU citizens and their partners which neutrally explored their hopes, aspirations and plans in relation to EU withdrawal and the indyref without being used in any way as props for a contrived controversy.
Unfortunately, I fear that part of the damage done by this article will be to erode the trust necessary for such articles.
Vince Littler
Scottish Borders
READ MORE: Letters: Sensationalist spin is not helpful to EU nationals
I HAVE just come across Dr Craig Anderson’s Long Letter of November 20 on the not proven verdict. As a retired Justice of the Peace of more than 30 years’ experience, like him, I believe it should be retained. If we approach this logically, it is the “not guilty” verdict that should be under examination.
My strong preference is that the traditional “proven” and “not proven” be established as the available verdicts in Scotland. These were verdicts that were in use historically and present the outcome of deliberations far more accurately than “guilty” and “not guilty”. Only the accused, and possibly any victim, knows whether they are guilty or not; a court cannot “find” them guilty and so such nomenclature to explain the outcome of consideration, viz. the verdict, is not logical.
Given that the court procedure is a rehearsal of the case for and against, supported by evidence, it would be far more logical that a bench accepts a case for one or the other as in a debate, where a motion would be carried or not carried, viz. the argument has been proven or not proven.
Further, since the judge (or a jury) is expected to consider whether the prosecution has established a case “beyond reasonable doubt”, then it is entirely logical that the formal nomenclature to be used to describe the outcome should be that the case against the accused has “been proven”, in other words has surpassed the measure of the yardstick.
In most other aspects of life we apply rational principles to whether a case has been made or not, and so it is illogical to treat court procedure any differently. I have in mind science, engineering or public enquiries, where the case for adopting a procedure, component, or proposed development respectively, is pursued through logical debate. The process establishes whether the evidence is reasonable, not that it possesses some other state, such as “safe”, say.
More than a couple of centuries ago the nomenclature used for the available pleas became used for the potential verdicts, for no logical reason at all, but the country now has an opportunity to correct that. We should embrace these old verdicts as being logical rather than move to replace them with those that apply in other countries as some matter of convention, driven by the media.
I therefore support the adoption of “proven” and “not proven” as the available verdicts in Scotland.
John C Hutchison
Fort William
READ MORE: Letters: It would make sense to ditch the not guilty verdict
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