I’VE finally seen in print the rumour that’s been doing the rounds for a wee while now – that Boris Johnson wants to move this year’s COP26 climate summit south of the Border (Is this why Johnson wants to freeze FM out of summit?, February 10).
Yes, the bigger person, the more nuanced politician, the FM, has offered Johnson a way out of his self-created confrontation, with her reminding him of her previous invites to earlier COPs. And of course the small fact that the world already knows where it should be going to in November.
READ MORE: Is this why Johnson wants to freeze Nicola Sturgeon out of COP26?
But will the PM heed that precedent? Would he prefer to consolidate his breakthrough, the breaking down of the “red wall”, by taking the conference to, say, Manchester? That would certainly put Andy Burnham and colleagues in a difficult position. Reject, in support of COP26, the EU prep work already undertaken, all those foreign dignitaries and NGO sectors on track for come to Scotland, and the possibility that rejection would be seen as support for Scotland? Would they risk the accusation of not capitalising on inward, regional income and the world profiling that COPs26 would bring? Would they say “no” to Boris?
Possibly that move would be a step too far even for Boris. It would expose his fragility in relation to a so-called united Kingdom and his “problem” that is Scotland. Even more so now with the success of Sinn Fein and the weekend elections in the Republic, that has brought centre stage the conversations and engagements going on across the island of Ireland and the potential for a “a referendum if at any time it appears likely that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland”. Would the PM agree to any such referendum that could result in a United Ireland? Would Boris find a way to say “now is not the time?”
So what should we be doing meanwhile, other than the grassroots keeping on doing what we already do? Self-organising, raising funds, producing merchandise, leaflets, holding events, organising speakers, creating a presence with our stalls, and all the rest. Should we test the PM in the courts, again? After all, what has those “mandates” achieved so far other than stoking our passions and re-enforcing our knowledge that there is a majority voting for pro-indy parties? What will another such mandate at the polls next year achieve? The realisation that due to “numbers” we are an irrelevance that he can and will continue to ignore?
Ah, that there could be a United Ireland before an independent Scotland
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh
KENNY Lang (Letters, February 7) makes a valid point about the use of “Boris”. Referring to the Abominable Showman by his first name only could have unfortunate consequences, such as making him appear normal and human.
On the other hand, judicious use of “Boris”, in conjunction with an appropriate epithet, helps give the reader an insight into his character and achievements.
Who would deprive us of Bongking Boris King of Bongs, Backdoor Boris (the Bashful Bullingdon Bully), Bigoted Boris and his “Burka” Bloomers or Blindside-Boris’s invisible Borders?
There’s a lot of mileage in Blawmalugs Boris’s moniker. (Contrast that with his mate Andrea Loathsome – associated with her leaden name is only endless ennui).
When the Brexshit hits the fan and even Britnats begin to be bored with chlorination chicken and scorned-beef burgers, we Scots will have saved our best Boris blast till last: BYE-BYE BORIS! Not missing you already.
James Stevenson
Auchterarder
I AM sickened to see the Sunday National feature a three-page article promoting the podcast of former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell. Come on National. We expect better of you.
The National has many talented journalists capable of a better written feature on Brian Cox, hopefully one which would not have the opening paragraph expressing surprise at a man doing his own sewing. Really?
I am flummoxed that your paper gives a three-page feature to such an offensive and odious bully, who supported Blair taking us into what many believe was an illegal war and who now happily uses nepotism to shoo his own daughter into journalism, in their Campbell family podcast. Where is The National on offering opportunities to young journalists on their own merit … not because their USP is having a famous dad?
Elaine Le Geyt
Edinburgh
READ MORE: Succession star Brian Cox: Scottish independence is inevitable
A SURPRISING and uninspired choice to fill three pages of the Sunday National comprising idle chat with Brian Cox, who Alastair Campbell is at pains to point out, in name-dropping style, he has visited before.
Much as Brian Cox is a great actor, Campbell’s article was not interesting and just reminds me of all the reasons we don’t want to hear from him. Surely we know he is not in any way a supporter of what The National stands for.
Let’s not give the Campbells any more free publicity. Haven’t heard the podcast, don’t want to.
Eunice Duthie
Edinburgh
A PANELLIST on the Jeremy Vine show referred to Harry as the Prince of England. No-one on the show picked her up on it.
Doesn’t this say all we Scots need to know about our status in the UK union? Don’t we deserve better?
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
RUMOUR has it the Boris Bridge project has been replaced. After a call across the pond, Boris and Trump have agreed on a tunnel from Land’s End to Florida, thus to support future trade deals ... and Boris has agreed to pay the costs!
Robin MacLean
Fort Augustus
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