BBC Breakfast took their red sofa to Dunfermline for their Election Special on June 2. Naga Munchetty was hosting interviews with local people. She had some children hold up copies of the daily papers. I nearly choked on my puffed wheat when I saw the papers shown.
They were The Telegraph (London, Tory), The Guardian (London, liberal), The Times (London, Tory) and the Mirror (London, Labour). The only Scottish paper was The Scotsman (Edinburgh, Tory)!
No disrespect intended to the delightful Naga but does she really think these are the papers most of us read? What about The National, The Herald, the Record, the Press and Journal?
If the London papers are the most widely read papers in Scotland, then we are in deep trouble if people believe half of what they read in them.
Andrew McCrae
Gourock
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN TYPICALLY impressive manner, Nicola Sturgeon gave a confident and competent presentation of the SNP manifesto on Tuesday. I find myself in agreement with most of its content but am left feeling that it is only as good as far as it goes. For me it does not go far enough!
By continuing this cautious and gradualist approach and playing the long game we are missing an opportunity. By marking time rather than pushing our agenda we are giving comfort and encouragement to our opponents. We are allowing them to dictate the rules and the timescale.
The manifesto is very light in reference to independence and is no more ambitious than seeking a majority of SNP MPs to secure a triple lock or consent for a new referendum. More than likely, a majority will be achieved but I fail to see how this will advance the cause. The Unionists will still say No, or insist on “public consent” or want a 99-year wait as suggested by Ruth Davidson.
We seem to have become very coy about mentioning independence, almost as if it has become the word that dare not speak its name. Could it be that the Unionists, by constantly banging on that we are always banging on about independence, have succeeded in their aim of trying to discredit the very notion? Have they made us afraid to proclaim our ambitions?
For a party whose very essence and raison d’etre is the pursuit of self-determination and independence such reticence is scarcely believable. Our opponents are not so backwards: their constant mantra has been that a vote for them is a vote against independence. I have said before and say again that we should have employed the reverse logic: that a vote for the SNP is a vote de facto for independence and a majority of SNP MPs would constitute the right to self-determination — the real deal, not just another referendum. If Maggie Thatcher thought such a scenario would be a genuine authority for independence, we should have been like-minded.
JF Davidson
Bonnyrigg
WATCHING the comedy of Theresa May and “her” election campaign I have come to the conclusion that she is losing her sense of purpose and direction. She is so obsessed with her hatred of Jeremy Corbyn that she spends more time talking about him than about what she and her party can offer the “UK” and its people. Not attending the televised “debate” (possibly watching her opponents on TV) and watching Amber Rudd turning from Green to Red was, for Theresa, as good as falling on her own sword.
Considering she hopes to haul aboard all of the Ukip votes to prop up her campaign, I cannot see this as a very credible move having witnessed the Ukip racial hatred coming to the fore. Top marks to SNP and the Greens for a bit of sanity and to Jeremy for his cool heid. As for Theresa, I think it’s May-Day, May-Day, May-Day.
Dave Beveridge
Via email
RUTH Davidson, Kezia Dugdale and Willie Rennie all like to use the pejorative expression “divisive referendum” but only when referring to a possible Scottish referendum.
Willie Rennie’s party proposes a supposedly “non-divisive referendum” for the UK once the terms of Brexit have been negotiated but hypocritically would deny Scotland a referendum if the next Westminster government decides not to have a UK referendum on those terms (which appears likely given that neither the Tories nor Labour wish to hold such a referendum).
The repeated use by all of the Scottish leaders of the pro-Union parties’ divisive prefix, which they did not apply to the Brexit referendum but only when referencing a Scottish referendum, exhibits a common disdain for the Scottish electorate who in their apparent opinions are uniquely incapable of participating in a national referendum without alienating other family members, friends or neighbours.
Perhaps this “bias” is not personal but simply a reflection of the fact that each of their political parties, in spite of their unceasing efforts to persuade us otherwise, is effectively run from London.
However, if this is the case, one has to question whether representatives of any of these parties elected from Scotland next week will be committed to standing up for the interests of their constituents, never mind Scotland, when the UK leaders of those parties also treat the Scottish electorate with contempt as evidenced by Theresa May’s arrogant refusal to seriously consider the Scottish Government’s compromise proposals outlined in Scotland’s Place in Europe.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry
CLARK Cross asks Mr Harvie of the Green Party to detail exactly where 200,000 new green jobs would come from (Letters, The National, June 1). The answer is simple. In the future, all jobs will need to be green as the protection of our planet will depend on ensuring economic activities are different from the destructive practices we currently employ.
The old-fashioned political views of the Tories — feudal, imperialist and capitalist — are only opposed by Labour, with its principles of protecting the mass of people from poverty, ignorance, hunger, disease and war, laudable aims only if they were based on a sustainable economy. Both views are past their sell-by date.
The Greens, however small, are the party of the future and of our planet, as Messrs Cross and Trump have not yet worked out.
Iain WD Forde
Scotlandwell
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 here