One of the current social media weekly rituals is the howls of outrage emanating from north of the Border whenever "Scotland" or "Scottish politics" rates a mention on the BBC's flagship "Question Time" programme.
The cause of annoyance comes from what can generally be termed 'ignorant' comments about the motivation for independence or the mindset of those who support it.
However, I suspect that education, rather than frustration, would be the better response to these comments. Mostly, their 'ignorance' seems to be just that - in the literal meaning of the word - these largely London-based commentators actually "do not know" what is going on in Scottish politics, and to attribute their ill-informed comments to hatred of the Scots is akin to their suggestion that the demand for independence indicates hatred of the English.
This 'ignorance' is scarcely surprising - as anyone who has lived in England for any length of time will be aware. For, whilst in Scotland and Wales, we are fed a daily diet of current affairs detailing what is happening at Westminster and at UK level, folk in England receive scant information about political events over their borders in Wales or Scotland. It is a media imbalance which reflects the political imbalance. Though we vote for representatives at Westminster and pay the same license fee as folk across the UK, our news coverage is, predictably, angled towards the 53 million in England rather than the five million in Scotland or the three million in Wales. It reflects the basic flaw in an unequal union of countries - the largest country will call the shots - whether or not that is in the interests of the other countries involved.
It is perhaps inevitable, however, that there is a train of thought south of the Border which is unaware of this imbalance. The establishment have long promoted the idea that the "UK way" with its "British values" is the "right way", indeed, the "only way" to approach political reality. There is some kind of hangover from colonial days in that view, you would have to surmise.
In addition, the Better Together campaign, frequently led from south of the Border, was fought as if the Yes camp were the SNP of the 1960s. Indeed, generally speaking, the use of 'proud Scot, 'patriotic', and 'Braveheart' was confined to the 'No' side in the campaign, whilst the independence lobby were actually talking about democratic accountability, being in a position to protect the vulnerable, the chance to use taxes progressively, and an opportunity to play a positive role in the world, instead of being isolated as an eighth of the UK's 'world view'. In an ironic turnaround, the modern call for independence was a demand for inclusivity and outward looking participation, whilst the No campaign was promoting an inward looking British nationalism.
Bearing this in mind, to equate the desire for self government with a hatred for another country, a case often made on "Question Time", seems quite bizarre, and veers towards the paranoia of the underconfident. I wonder if the promotion of vague 'British values' covers up a fear that the UK state does not stand for anything much these days other than the self protection of the elite.
Education is the way forward, and, irrespective of parliamentary arithmetic after the next UK election, at least the presence of an increased number of SNP MPs should provide an opportunity for folk in England to discover the true, progressive nature of our demands for independence, whether they agree with them or not.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article