IN a media landscape dominated by pro-Union titles, it often takes an outsider to see things more clearly.
The Irish Times has given its views on Scottish independence in a new editorial, showing a greater understanding of the constitutional argument than many media outlets closer to home.
It recognises that the sentiment behind the Yes movement cannot be written off as “narrow bigotry”, as many Unionists would have you believe.
The editorial also points out a flaw or two in Boris Johnson’s plan to stop Scottish independence.
Explaining a surge in support for a Yes vote, it reads: “The prospect of a hard Brexit and resentment over London’s centralisation of decisions on it, and over its handling of the Covid-19 crisis, are the principal factors driving the momentum. They build on longer term shifts of conviction among a growing number of Scots that the nation’s wellbeing and prosperity are best assured by an independent state within the EU.
“This is a political and civic change of view which bolsters feelings of cultural and national identity that have also been growing. Scottish and UK unionists have difficulty understanding such a broad-based nationalism. It cannot be dismissed as a narrow bigotry but requires that a much more reasoned case be made for Scotland to remain in the Union.”
READ MORE: John Curtice: SNP majority would make Tory position on indyref2 untenable
The editorial continues: “That case is now being argued by a highly centralised Conservative government with an English majority led by Boris Johnson and determined to assert its own independence from the EU. All these elements rub up against Scottish preferences to stay in or close to the EU and to have sovereignty over such decisions.
“These issues are entangled with the Covid-19 ones, as Nicola Sturgeon’s handling of the pandemic is seen by Scots to be more effective than Johnson’s. The more assertive unionism he articulates about UK funding for Scottish infrastructure and welfare is similarly abrasive for Scots who say independence is affordable and more sustainable.”
We couldn't agree more.
All of this is evident to outside observers, and recent polls show an ever-growing number of Scots are waking up to the facts too.
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