I WAS concerned by your editorial decision to devote half of your front page on Saturday to Alex Salmond criticising the BBC.
The National seems to be the only thing keeping his party from vanishing from our consciousness (along with 100 journalists in London apparently). I am surprised that Mr Salmond has not taken the time to listen to the BBC Scotland Podlitical podcast over the last two weeks, where Westminster correspondent Nick Eardley has gone out of his way to talk up Mr Salmond’s party while talking down the election. The Green and SNP manifestos were covered without any discussion whatsoever of their policy proposals.
READ MORE: 'The shame of Scotland': Alex Salmond in blistering attack on BBC executives
If we are going to build a positive, independent Scotland we need to engage everyone in debate, and your editorial decisions can play a hugely positive role in this. Voters are crying out for insightful analysis of policies within the various manifestos, that is what The National delivers at its best.
Allow me to suggest that loyalty should be to the cause before individuals, especially when the cause of those individuals is becoming increasingly hard to fathom. When the only media offering you a platform is run by Andrew Neil, your next step is probably fascism.
Danny Oswald
Dunfermline
LIKE many people in Scotland after September 18 2014, I was in mourning for Scottish independence. I was horrified when Alex Salmond resigned, and as soon as David Cameron announced English Votes for English Laws I knew we had been set up.
I believed that First Minister Sturgeon would begin to set the way for our next attempt. I think that she has done well on a number of issues, including Covid, but I have been mystified by the politics of the sex/gender debate and by the inept hate crime legislation.
Alex Salmond has been steeped in the culture and politics of Scottish independence all his adult life. His speeches are peppered with anecdotes and metaphors from his expert knowledge of Scottish medieval history. Whatever mistakes he made in the first referendum, he drove the campaign with tremendous courage and commitment.
READ MORE: The only 'gaming' of the system comes from broadcasters' Alba blackout
What has been deeply disappointing about Ms Sturgeon’s reaction to Salmond’s re-entry into the election is her furious refusal to work with the Alba Party. It casts some doubt on her commitment to independence.
Like a few hundred other women I joined Alba’s Women’s conference last weekend and was pleased to hear the debates, particularly about the sex/gender issues which I have never heard discussed publicly.
It was a marvellous conference with women of all ages, backgrounds and sexuality debating with honesty and kindness.
With Westminster sleaze and cronyism so casually acknowledged and dismissed by the mainstream media, the bar on UK parliamentary behaviour is not set very high.
This demands some urgency on the part of the Scottish independence movement to win a big majority.
I hope the SNP leadership will have a think about their position and consider us, “the sma’ folk” who have been campaigning for a vibrant new independent progressive Scottish democracy.
Maggie Chetty
Glasgow
WE need to call out those politicians who seek to rewrite history to serve their own interests, an all-too-common event these days. In the STV leaders’ debate Willie Rennie spoke of “the brutal arguments”, “the poisonous debate” and the “open wounds” of 2014.
How did it appear at the time? The following are all quoted in Iain Macwhirter’s excellent account of the 2014 referendum.
John McTernan wrote in The Scotsman on August 23 2014: “If you love politics then you have to love the referendum ... The hallmark of the debate, despite a few nastier notes in the margin, has been respect, and above all else seriousness.”
READ MORE: Willie Rennie's talk about 'open wounds' from 2014 is unmitigated guff
Or Hugo Rifkind in The Times on September 2: “Don’t be fooled by the ugliness you’ve seen on the front of newspapers, or the eggs, or the cybernat ghouls. Rarely can there have been a political battle with such high stakes that has been conducted so peacefully.”
And Alex Massie in The Spectator of 4 September 2014: “the campaign has been a steroid injection for democracy ... this is what politics is supposed to be about; this is what we’re supposed to want.”
These three contemporary comments from three political commentators – two on the right and one on the left and, crucially, none of them in favour of Scottish independence – expose Mr Rennie’s distorted account of 2014 for what it is: false propaganda.
Gavin Brown
Linlithgow
RUTH Davidson wants to scrap the House of Lords and to make a start she is going to join them. Now I know that having your friends close and your enemies closer shows a degree of prudence and candour, and clearly Baroness Davidson has neither so her plan to destroy from within might be problematic.
READ MORE: Ruth Davidson panned over claim she'd vote to scrap unelected Lords
Perhaps instead she should realistically consider reducing the population of stoats, thereby cutting off the supply of ermine that goes to make the gowns. But by far the biggest obstacle to her alleged plan is the Tory party,with a whacking 262 of the 800 members who are not going anywhere. Even with a leg-up from BBC Scotland, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, the doyen of the Unionist media has issued yet another false promise that is doomed to failure.
But her real ambition? Ruthy has an eye on an even greater prize – ordering Nicola Sturgeon about from the safety of Dover House, Whitehall, London. Clear your desk, Mr Jack.
Mike Herd
Highland
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