DAVE Finlay’s excellent long letter raises some pertinent issues regarding the Neanderthal behaviour witnessed last weekend from a sizeable minority of Glasgow Rangers supporters.
Mr Finlay observes, quite accurately, that it is in the interests of the British establishment, and in particular the Scottish Tory party, to perpetuate the division and sectarianism displayed by the triumphalist, mindless mob that descended on George Square.
READ MORE: The British establishment is to blame for the sectarian divide in Scotland
Conservative politicians such as Murdo Fraser and Jackson Carlaw stoked the flames of victimisation using false equivalence on social media by comparing a peaceful demonstration supporting the people of Palestine with an unruly crowd of thugs festooned in Unionist regalia, in the full knowledge that they are appealing quite calculatingly to their core support. At the time of writing no Scottish Conservative politician has condemned attacks on police or the carnage visited on the centre of Glasgow.
Rangers FC have issued a somewhat mealy mouthed apology of sorts blaming a small minority of supporters but essentially adopting a stance that Pontus Pilate would have been proud of by washing their hands of the putrid sectarian and racist nature of the euphemistically titled celebrations.
READ MORE: Tory MSP Murdo Fraser slammed for tweet condemning pro-Palestine protesters
If an independent Scotland is to present a face of inclusion and tolerance to the rest of the world we must begin, as Mr Finlay observes, to grasp the nettle of culturally embedded racism and bigotry now. The “sizeable minority” of Rangers fans have essentially been ungovernable twice in the last two months in what amounted to a collective assault on the city and people of Glasgow.
This is a highly dangerous precedent to set and the Scottish Government must act now to highlight future consequences for the football club and individuals involved should there be a repeat of this brutish destructiveness. A punishment of points docked in the league and a consideration of more severe police tactics in dealing with similar breakdowns in law and order, such as the use of water cannon on the crowd, would be a start.
Owen Kelly
Stirling
I ENJOYED Kevin McKenna’s stripping down and dissection of what is necessary to be classified as a real hereditary Tory (Tories’ handling of Covid pandemic indicates a type of psychopathy, May 19). He went on to describe the political Tory as distinct from the aforementioned toff Tory.
The latter being the “fill yer boots” Tory that makes up the present UK Government.
Better still was the enjoyable description of those of a similar disposition as our Scottish Tories, whether in the Holyrood or Westminster parliament. Some are born into the middle classes of any level you care to choose. Others, with an acute aspiration for the better things in life, select the fast track through their misguided opinion that the Tory member of parliament will open doors faster than their next-door neighbour plumber apprentice.
READ MORE: Tories’ handling of Covid indicates a type of psychopathy
Some are mebby sons and daughters of a high street shopkeeper or from a farming family. Even a supermarket manager would suffice so long as daddy could afford the necessary university education.
All this aside – amusing as it was, Kevin – I was disappointed by your inference that these Tory traits are to be found in our elected government. Sure, most will have had the university education. Even I was re-educated in order to achieve a better life than the secondary modern education (leaving school at 15) could afford me.
But I digress. You provide no evidence of our government which compares to your preceding accounts of Toryisms. I see no evidence myself of any aspiration to said “power and wealth”. Even the Tory opposition doesn’t come anywhere near the Westminster bunch. Good grief! One even used to be a car salesman!!
Your column lost ground on the last eight-line paragraph. If you still want to continue to have a go at the SNP government then please back up your own aspirations with some facts we can believe in.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife
IAN Blackford got his allotted two questions at today's PMQs. He asked one question about crofters and farmers and the impact of the planned Australian trade deal. This sparked a ridiculous tirade but no actual answer, so his next question was “Will he listen to those, in his own party, who advise him to pull back from this deal, or will he throw British farmers under the Brexit bus?” This elicited not an answer but another phase of breathless bluster, liberally peppered with superlatives and exaggeration but devoid of any enlightenment!
READ MORE: PMQs: A chilling reply to farmers about tariff-free Australian trade deal
This performance, for me, underlines the complete waste of time, energy and taxpayers’ money on a practice which should either be revised to empower a Speaker to intercede and insist a proper answer be delivered, or have parliament have the whole pantomime consigned to history!
Can anybody remember an occasion when Johnson DID, actually, answer a question asked by Ian Blackford?
Ned Larkin
Inverness
I CANNOT understand Anas Sarwar’s opposition to another independence referendum. I have never heard him provide hard evidence as to why Scotland could not be independent.
Does he not listen to the 51% of Labour voters across the UK who support the right of Scotland to have another referendum? It is hardly surprising that by taking this standpoint against a referendum the support for Labour is in decline.
Does he not realise that if he supported another referendum the Labour voters would come back, and when we regain our independence the Labour party could be voted into government and he could become FM?
Gordon Walker
via email
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