Starting with the fitba, let’s reinvigorate Scots pride

During the same week as his untimely passing, however, disgracefully incongruously, for the first time this century, Scotland’s fitba team’s competitive games were not shown at all on the telly. We have become used to not seeing them on terrestrial (cooncil) telly but this time, the games against Croatia and Portugal were naewhere tae be found on any telly station, even the ones ye need tae pay a fortune tae see! The pay channel Viaplay has recently shown Scotland games but has now just restricted them to its YouTube channel.

My partner and I watched these two games and were dismayed at the el cheapo third-rate coverage. No discussion prior to kick-off, at half time or after the game with the usual pundits in the studio as there were none! Coverage just started five minutes before kick-off involving the commentator and an ex-footballer co-commentator and that was bloody well it!

However, anyone without a smart telly, smartphone, laptop, etc – such as many of the elderly, for example – couldn’t even watch this pathetic coverage of their beloved national football team. In 2024, that is an abomination! Oh, silly me, we can, of course, watch a slick professional coverage of our neighbour’s team, south of the Border, on “Scottish” Television, thanks to the contract ITV long ago agreed with the English Football Association to show their games live. Where is the massive uproar about this situation among “our” press and media? Apart from a few instances, it’s naewhere tae be seen.

We are told this situation is all down to market forces, with the population in England being much higher than Scotland meaning many more viewers watch their games, benefitting the advertisers far more. In other words, yet another example of cold-hearted rampant capitalism.

However, I feel it’s much more than that. Thanks in a big part due to Alex Salmond, the SNP first formed a government at Holyrood in 2007 and unexpectedly, the “Yes” side did much better than they were expected to do in 2014 when the referendum was first announced. Since November 2014 – thanks in a big part to Nicola Sturgeon – the SNP have continued to form the government at Holyrood and many opinion polls have consistently put the “Yes” side neck and neck with “No”.

This, in my view, has attracted an urge by the establishment in England not only to persistently denigrate any desire in Scotland for independence but also to quell any feeling of national pride, apart from pride in Britain of course, when our poor athletes are obliged to be draped in the Union Jack after winning medals.

For me, ITV, part of the English establishment, doesn’t give a monkeys about national pride up here. If they genuinely did, they could have spent that bit extra to let STV show Scotland games live also.

I wonder how many folk that voted No in 2014 thought that 10 years later, rather than being “Better Together”, Scotland had become more and more diminished and sidelined by the high heid yins in England. The best tribute to Alex would be to drastically turn this situation around with the sort of inspiration involved in 2014. Rest in peace, Alex.
Ivor Telfer
Dalgety Bay

ONE of the most immediate concerns about the “envoy to the nations and regions” is the potential erosion of Scotland’s devolved powers. Scotland has enjoyed a degree of self-governance since the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999, allowing it to make decisions on a range of issues, from health to education. The introduction of an envoy from England could be perceived as undermining this hard-won autonomy, suggesting a centralisation of power that many in Scotland view as an infringement on their sovereignty.

The envoy might be seen as a symbolic gesture of control rather than collaboration. This could foster feelings of resentment among Scots, who may interpret the move as England’s attempt to exert influence over Scottish affairs. The perception that decisions affecting Scotland are being made by an envoy rather than by elected representatives in the Scottish Parliament could lead to increased frustration and disillusionment with the UK Government.

Scotland has a rich and distinct national identity, characterised by its unique cultural heritage and political aspirations. The appointment of an envoy could be perceived as an attempt to dilute this identity, leading to a sense of alienation among Scots. As the envoy represents English interests, it may further alienate those who feel that their values and priorities are not being adequately recognised or represented.

This move could also strain relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK. By appointing a representative focused on “nations”, the UK Government risks creating an environment of division rather than unity. The Scottish Government may view the envoy as a rival, leading to increased political tension and a lack of collaboration on issues that affect all parts of the UK, such as health crises or economic challenges.

Finally, the appointment could bolster the case for Scottish independence. Many Scots already feel a strong desire for greater autonomy or full independence, and the envoy may be seen as an indicator that their interests are not being prioritised within the UK framework. This could galvanise support for independence, leading to further political instability and uncertainty.

In summary, the appointment of a “nations envoy” by England can have profound negative impacts on Scotland, from undermining devolution to straining intergovernmental relations.

As Scotland navigates its place within the UK, such actions can fuel feelings of disenfranchisement, intensifying calls for self-determination and highlighting the complexities of governance in a multi-national context. For many in Scotland, the envoy may represent not just a political figure, but a broader struggle for identity and agency in a rapidly changing world.
Kevin Walker
Blairgowrie

BETWEEN 1918 and 2024, there have been 29 elections in the so-called United Kingdom, resulting in 13 Conservative governments, 12 Labour governments and four national or coalition governments. We have had 12 Labour governments, but never a socialist government. Or any attempt at a socialist society. Yet we still have so many people telling us that Labour are “for the working man”.

Although Scotland is definitely more politically conscious than our southern rulers, we still have a long way to go to educate our masses of lumpen loyalists. I found no-one wanted this raised at SNP meetings, as it was too silly and illogical to discuss and no-one wanted to stimulate the Orange vote. These are our workmates, colleagues, friends and neighbours and unless we discuss this head-on with them, not only are we denying them a rise out of poverty among plenty, we are condemning them to perpetual ignorance and intellectual poverty and servility.
Donald Anderson
Glasgow

ARCHBISHOP Justin Welby has described a parliamentary bill that would give terminally ill people in England and Wales the right to end their lives as “dangerous.”

There are many complex discussions to be had around this issue but do Welby’s “slippery slope” arguments seek to mask a simpler one – that he believes only his god can give and take life?

While this is a legitimate position for a minority of religious believers, should he and 25 other Church of England bishops have voting seats in the House of Lords?
Neil Barber
Edinburgh Secular Society

I WRITE this letter today, as another response to P Davidson’s letter, published on October 13 as the other half of “the Anderson correspondents” addressing a legal route to independence, and acknowledging Campbell Anderson’s letter in The National on Friday, October 18.

I entirely agree with Davidson and Anderson that there needs to be a united cross-party approach to this issue and this indeed is what I have established in the Respect Scottish Sovereignty (RSS) group.

I must thank Campbell for informing us that what his MSP is saying about the SNP Government’s response to our letter to the First Minister is that it has been referred to “a suitable area for consideration”. Like Campbell, I have no idea what that means, but it is at least some response – we have heard nothing yet from John Swinney.

We have also attempted to lodge a petition in the Scottish Parliament and we are having resistance here too, on a claim that our petition is not clear and might be asking the Parliament to consider matters that are “reserved” under the Scotland Act. This is factually incorrect and it is currently being reconsidered again by the committee, This may be what Angus Robertson MSP is referring to.

The fact of the matter is that Schedule 5 Part 1 subsection (2) of the Scotland Act is quite clear on this matter. It states that all UN human rights covenants which have been signed by the UK Government can be passed into Scottish law and are specifically excluded from “reserved matters” under the Act.

This means that there are no grounds for the UK Government, the UK Supreme Court or the puppet King Charles to interfere in or try to prevent the Scottish Parliament from putting the UN ICCPR into Scottish law. Once this is done, then the Scottish people can exercise their right to hold a referendum on any civil or political subject they like at any time and such a move would be within Scottish and international law.

Just before his early and untimely death, the last recording made by Alex Salmond was about people trying to deny other people the democratic rights they are entitled to. He said that such activity not only demeaned the people whose rights were being denied, but also the people attempting to deny them. Alex was right in this statement.

The RSS group is not alone in demanding that that the Scottish Government put the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into Scottish law. The Scottish Human Rights Commission also wants this – not only because the Scottish Government has a legal right to do this, but also because it has a responsibility to do it.

I would be happy to hear from anyone who wants to know more about this.
Andy Anderson
Ardrossan

SINCE Alex Salmond sadly passed away, I have heard many references to and quotes of his famous line “the dream shall never die” and proposing this as the slogan of the independence movement. Surely this is not the slogan we need – we want the dream to be our target, an achievement, not something that we are always looking forward to but never reaching. Surely a fitting legacy for Alex is to make “the dream become a reality”!
Prof John Watson
Alford, Aberdeenshire