THE first word the Oxford English Dictionary adduces in its definition of debate is “strife”, followed shortly by “quarrelling” and “wrangling”. Strife, quarrelling and wrangling have certainly ensued after Theresa May’s declaration that she was willing to participate in a televised debate of her Brexit plan.
If this sounded like an uncharacteristically confident brainstorm on the Prime Minister’s part, it soon became clear that the only person she wanted to debate with was Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Clearly, she is not keen on debating with Nicola Sturgeon.
The First Minister accused Mrs May of being afraid to do so and, certainly, it fitted in with Ms Sturgeon’s wider narrative yesterday that Scotland’s interests were being ignored and the country being treated with “contempt”.
While all that might sound like standard nationalist rhetoric, the idea of leaving Ms Sturgeon out of the debate has been criticised by many south of the Border, including Labour’s Baron Adonis. One reason for this is that, given Mr Corbyn’s many accommodations, they see her as the true voice of Remain. Ms Sturgeon herself has described May v Corbyn as “two versions of Brexit”.
Be that as it may, there surely is a strong case for letting the First Minister of Scotland, and leader of the third largest party in the Commons, speak in the debate. Yesterday, however, David Lidington, Mrs May’s de facto deputy, demanded it be restricted to “the leaders of the two biggest parties at Westminster”, and suggested that Scots debate the matter among themselves, presumably with no one down south paying any attention.
From another perspective, Boris Johnson said the debate was a dud because both Mrs May and Mr Corbyn voted for Remain. Putting all the quarrels together, then, the debate could feature no proper Brexit voice, no proper Remain voice, and no Scottish voice. It would be a debate haunted by absent debaters, though at least that would mean less strife for Mrs May.
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 here