I AM increasingly frustrated at much of the language and behaviour of those who oppose Scottish self-determination, but the one jibe which annoys me most is the attempt to portray independence supporters as “nationalist”.
As one such supporter, and a long-standing opponent of racism and bigotry, I am insulted by this characterisation. To be proud of one’s nation and the culture and values which it espouses is not nationalist, especially when those values demonstrate tolerance and are unselfish, outward-looking and international.
Allowing people who wish to share those values and live in Scotland is the opposite of nationalist. Putting in place discriminatory immigration policies, where access to money is more important than a person’s need, is nationalistic, as is failing to allow children whose parents have fled persecution and violence to join them in a safe country. The extent that bigotry and racism are tolerated in a country is a measure of its nationalism. As an Englishman living in Scotland, I can assure my friends, here and down south, that Scotland and the Scottish Government are not nationalist.
READ MORE: Who is Lisa Nandy and what happens next after her Catalonia remarks?
It is time that all the progressive parties in the UK recognise that opposing Scotland’s right to determine its own future is playing into the hands of extremism. I want all candidates for the Labour leadership to put the past behind them. Their support for the Union for selfish party reasons, such as the source of a number of seats in the Westminster parliament, must end. They should recognise that an independent Scotland can be a beacon of hope for those who are suffering under an extreme right-wing government. I will be writing to all candidates for the party leadership to this effect.
Our political future must not be decided by politicians who create sound-bites of unfair allegations that are repeated so often they are accepted as fact. Scotland is different. Wanting to preserve that difference is why we seek to determine our own future.
Pete Rowberry
Duns
I FOUND the feature article by Simon Brooke (Politics as usual will not determine our future..., January 16) to be both reinvigorating and original. The former because Mr Brooke touched on the full range of challenges facing the wider Yes movement, and the latter because he interestingly touched on what some historic weaknesses of our movement have been, such as the need to convince rural Scotland that independence will not mean Edinburgh becoming a mini Westminster in its centralisation.
A few weeks ago I wrote in The National of how the SNP had, historically and ideologically, been a decentralist party and I encouraged it to recapture that important aspect of its soul. Mr Brooke rightly notes that the SNP in government in Holyrood has unfortunately had “a policy of centralisation”, yet this could be more to do with the financial constraints of devolution than a full-blooded desire to cement all powers in Edinburgh.
READ MORE: Simon Brooke: Why politics as usual won't shape our future
Mr Brooke is right to identify that this is no small consideration for the Yes movement. Indeed, twice in my lifetime, both in the first devolution referendum of 1979 and in the independence referendum of 2014, areas like Tayside and Aberdeenshire were returning SNP parliamentarians across these decades, yet set their face against constitutional change due to fear of centralisation.
The century-long political struggle for Scottish independence has made it almost inevitable the focus has been on the journey rather than the destination, but that has to change. Since 1997 I have been of the firm opinion that an independent Scotland should seriously explore having a federal structure as a democratic antidote to the culture of power that has sadly developed in Holyrood.
Cllr Andy Doig (Independent)
Renfrewshire Council
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