IN my opinion, the recent protest mounted at the Scottish Border with the intention to protect Scotland from unnecessary coronavirus infection was misguided.
It could have been anticipated that this would be hijacked as a nationalist or constitutional issue, but that it has been exaggerated out of all proportion as a racist anti-English attack is a sign of how desperate Unionists and their standard bearers in the majority of the Scottish media have become.
The faux outrage is transparent, but we really should avoid giving them opportunities like this. However, the rationale for describing the protest as racist is desperately weak if you consider the following.
READ MORE: Air bridges: Nicola Sturgeon reveals new overseas travel rules
At the 2011 census, 61% of the population of England identified as white. There were 14 other nationalities which identified as non-white. Those identifying as white, other than English-born people, included Americans, Canadians, South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders, Zimbabweans and people from the EU. The largest number from the latter were Poles, who, in 2019 still numbered 902,000.
From the British Isles, at the census, living in England were 708,872 Scots, 430,309 Irish and 610,00 Welsh. Any member of the groups (white or non-white) mentioned above could have been driving to Scotland, and I’d be obliged if anyone making these comments, including a group of knee-jerking SNP politicians, could explain how the group parked up in a lay-by were able to identify the drivers as English?
Gill Turner
Edinburgh
WHATEVER Henry Dundas did or did not do in relation to slavery, few Edinburgh folk nowadays know or care much about him. His statue should leave St Andrew Square. It could be retired to a smaller plinth, perhaps on Calton Hill, with a plaque saying who he was and what he did. The column in St Andrew Square might be removed or could appropriately bear a representation of Saint Andrew or a Saltire (Saint Andrew’s Cross). Or a unicorn could properly adorn one of our capital city’s main squares.
David Stevenson
Edinburgh
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