NOW that the starting gun has (sort of, a wee bit) been fired on Indyref2 we should all prepare ourselves for the favoured pro-union argument against holding one.
Namely: that voting on our country’s future is inherently "divisive".
I’ve always found this such a strange concept.
I’m not for one second claiming that the 2014 independence referendum wasn’t the subject of (often fierce) debate. Nor that there weren’t people on both sides of the argument who were actively abusive to those on the other.
But politics, by its very nature, is divisive. When people debate two conflicting visions for a nation you’re going to encounter some linguistic rough and tumble.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson might not replace Lord Geidt after ethics adviser resigns
If you’re unlucky, you might even encounter a few sweary words.
But if you believe unionists, the debate about independence is somehow uniquely dangerous.
How many times have we heard the bewildering claim that families were torn apart by the poll in 2014? In my family we are well capable of conflict and division without needing to rely on politics, thank you very much.
So it’s no surprise that Douglas Ross asked about "another divisive independence referendum" in his opening question to the First Minister.
She said that she was pleased he had done so, as it showed "an implicit – if not explicit – recognition that yes, people in Scotland WILL have their say on independence - in line with the democratic mandate that this parliament has." Douglas Ross asked the First Minister why, when there are ferries that need to be floated and other pressing issues to attend to, she was focusing on the constitution.
If only the First Minister had the Prime Minister’s work ethic and deep sense of duty, she too could have learned how to break the law and drink sambuca shots at the same time.
She went on: ‘’[Indyref2] is not the distraction that Douglas Ross wants to pretend it is. Instead it presents an alternative to a failing UK system. A system that gives us a Prime Minister with no democratic or moral mandate in Scotland; that has given us a Brexit we did not vote for.’’ ‘’What a DEPRESSING answer from the First Minister’’ replied Douglas Ross.
Amid heckles, the Presiding Officer interjected to announce ‘’We WILL hear Mr Ross!’’ Must we?
He went on to say that the First Minister cannot improve our country while ‘’she is working to divide it all over again.’’ You can see his point. It’s been so nice since the 2014 vote, hasn’t it? Very un-divided.
We’ve not heard a peep about independence ever since.
It’s been all cuddles and rainbows and nobody even REMEMBERS how they voted in 2014. You never hear anybody talk about wanting independence or not wanting independence. The SNP and the Scottish Conservatives didn’t make their position on independence the core focus of their campaigns in the Scottish Parliament election last year.
How dare the First Minister take unified, settled, non-political Scotland and sully its good name with something so grotesque as a democratic referendum that the electorate asked for in the most recent election?
Buckle up folks, we’re in for a bumpy ride.
And I for one can’t wait.
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