For quite some time now it has been my custom to read The Herald’s Letters pages backwards; not, you understand, word by word, but epistle by epistle. I prefer to start with the light-hearted, at the bottom of the right hand page, and I eventually move, with some reluctance, to the left hand page, with all its doom and gloom.
The mood on Saturday, however, tends to be lighter. I see a couple of days ago there were ten letters. Last up at No. 10, a note about drivers and zebra crossings, currently a running theme. Apparently in Sorrento, drivers will only stop for you at a zebra crossing if you are a priest, or heavily pregnant. There’s an accompanying picture of grinning clergy, gorgeously attired.
At No. 9 (this is like the Hit Parade), a letter from a doctor who currently is probably the Herald’s most frequent correspondent. He usually writes on political and constitutional matters, but today he is writing about the removal of a mummy from Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, apparently because consent to be exhibited was not given (I assume) by the mummy. The doctor thinks this is silly.
I don’t know whether the correspondent is a medical doctor, or has a doctorate in another discipline, like Egyptology. Isn’t it funny how one builds up a picture of a writer, presumably based upon his or her viewpoint, and mode of expression. I think of the doctor as being past middle age, of small stature, and somewhat rotund. For all I know, he could be a 23 year old second row forward.
At No. 8, and No. 7, another topical running theme: two panegyrics to the use of “sir” or “madam”, as opposed to “buddy” or “mate”, in interchanges between various service providers, and the public. At No. 6, a plea to ban fireworks, and at No. 5, two letters published without a break – it’s a typo. One abhors the Glasgow habit of placing traffic cones on top of statues, and the other, from the USA, favourably compares the state of school education in Pennsylvania with that in Scotland.
We move to the left hand page and, as anticipated, a change of tone. At No. 4, apparently a longer letter, but it turns out to be another typo – two letters back to back. The SNP’s track record of government over the last twenty years has been so miserable that the only possible reason to vote for independence would be to deny the SNP its raison d’être, hence hastening the party’s demise. We are back on familiar territory.
Yet, albeit unwillingly welded to the above, a new idea. Rather than asking Westminster permission for another referendum, the SNP should take a leaf out of Andy Burnham’s book. He is making overtures to the EU to forge a new deal, after which he will presumably present it to the electorate. Similarly, the Scottish Government should negotiate an independence settlement with Westminster, and then put its fine detail before the Scottish people.
Good luck with that.
At No. 3: a letter about the PM’s recent visit to Scotland and his offer to devolve “employability support” from the Department of Works and Pensions to Holyrood, but only on condition that such powers are further devolved to regional and local authorities. But apparently such powers are already part of a consultation on reform of public services. Powers over employment law, says the correspondent, should be devolved to Scotland with immediate effect.
Letter No. 2: we need to open up Rosebank. The country has no money; there are far too many people on benefits, and the rich are upping sticks and leaving. If the International Monetary Fund loses confidence in the UK, we will be back to soup kitchens, long queues at food banks, blackouts, and yet more food shortages.
(I was reminded of a line from one of last week’s recurring themes, ITMA – It’s that man again. Was it from Mrs. Mopp? “It’s being so cheery as keeps me going.”)
And in pole position at No. 1, the banner headline, More support for prisoners – or we reach crises point. (Shouldn’t that read “crisis point”?) The number of people dying while in police custody is rising, including those detained on mental health grounds. There is excessive delay in transferring people to secure psychiatric hospitals. Overcrowding and understaffing in prisons lead to increased distress, and prevent rehabilitation. The Scottish Government needs to invest in more psychological professionals. (This letter has been written by a forensic psychologist.) There is an accompanying picture of a prison interior.
If I say the tone of Saturday’s left hand page is lighter than that of any given weekday, that might suggest how gloomy it can be. Generally the left hand page is dominated, and has been since well before the referendum of 2014, by the constitutional question. The correspondents are either Unionist, or Nationalist. Occasionally someone writes in with an open mind, an “undecided”, but this is rare. Mostly, correspondents are opinionated. They occupy a space, a chamber in which two factions are separated by two swords’ lengths. Generally they talk at one another, rather than to one another. There is little attempt to find common ground. In fact, the letters tend to be characterised by a lack of respect for the opponent’s point of view. Unionists describe Nationalists as “separatists” and the 2014 slogan “Better Together” is still used. Separatism implies disruption and disharmony. The Nationalists are trying to rip the United Kingdom apart. (This is not actually true. There is no manifesto commitment to reverse the Union of the Crowns of 1603, only the Union of the Parliaments of 1707.) The Nationalists are depicted as an uncouth marauding band of agents provocateurs wearing kilts, painted in woad, carrying saltires and lions rampant, eating haggis and shortbread, drinking whisky and Irn Bru, playing bagpipes and beating an antique drum. They live in Brigadoon, a kind of cloud cuckoo land.
Meanwhile the Nationalists depict the Unionists as Perfidious Albion, sinister and corrupt rather than feckless and naïve. A parcel of rogues. They are wedded to Westminster, the seat of a now defunct empire. The building, the Palace of Westminster itself, has become a metaphor for an obsolete United Kingdom, crumbling before our very eyes, and sinking into the River Thames. The bloated House of Lords is an anachronism. Conservatism and the Tories, the “natural” ruling party of middle England, has protected the Establishment and guarded the interests of the super wealthy. England loots Scotland rapaciously. We are in thrall to a partner who is manipulative, coercive, and abusive. Our abundant natural resources are spirited away. We are being ripped off.
No, no, say the Unionists. Scotland is dependent upon England. She could not survive without the Barnett Formula. You only need to look at the GERS (Government expenditure and revenue Scotland) figures. Both sides accuse the other’s government (Westminster and Holyrood respectively) of gross incompetence. They waste eye-watering amounts of money. “Whataboutery” is de rigueur. Look at the ferries, say the Unionists. Look at HS2, say the Nationalists. Then there are the accusations of lack of probity; there is embezzlement of party donations on one side, and the Covid scandal of Partygate (as well as the supply of faulty personal protective equipment by private enterprise and for monetary gain) on the other. Down south there are other scandals involving maternity units, and the Post Office. Up here, there are the highest drug death rates in Europe.
The polls on independence are roughly fifty-fifty. That’s the problem. The nation is divided. Judging from the Herald Letters pages over the past twelve years, neither side has gained much ground. The sides are entrenched. It is a war of attrition.
Is there a way forward?
If there is, it seems to me that it must start with each side showing the other respect. We need to ask, why does my opponent think the way he does? Is there anything in his argument that is attractive? And dare I say it, could he possibly be right? And is there any common ground?
I think most Unionists would at least concede that the idea of Scottish nationhood is not inherently absurd. There is a culture and tradition traceable over more than a thousand years. Winston said that Scotland was second only to Greece, in terms of a small nation’s contribution to the world. Indeed, some of the most diehard Unionists are themselves the most vociferous in their claim to Scottishness. “There is no more proud Scot than I am!” So the argument for Unionism tends to be based on pragmatism, realpolitik, economic reality, and security.
On the other side, most Nationalists would concede that the affairs of Scotland and England, if only because of their propinquity, are inextricably linked. We may have our ups and downs, but we have close ties. We were perhaps never closer than during the Second World War, when these islands might have been invaded. We have a strong bond.
Would it be possible to have the best of both worlds, and recognise Scotland’s autonomous nationhood while protecting the economic arrangements which bind us? It could be argued that Alec Salmond tried to do just that in 2014 when he favoured an open border, free trade, and a common currency with the Bank of England as the reserve bank of last resort. But the then Chancellor George Osborne made a fleeting trip to Scotland to inform us, somewhat icily, that that wasn’t going to happen. He didn’t stay long. I suppose he must have sensed he was in a foreign country. Mr Salmond said Mr Osborne was bluffing, and in the event of a yes vote, these proposed arrangements would be adopted. He urged us to grasp this “once in a generation opportunity”.
It was a phrase that came back to haunt subsequent SNP administrations. Indeed, there is a letter in today’s Herald asking the Nationalists to respect Mr Salmond’s “once in a generation”, as a term of negotiation. Apparently it was his idea to kick independence into the long grass, and shut up for thirty years. This is disingenuous. Clearly Mr Salmond was saying to the people of Scotland, grasp this opportunity now. You may not get another chance.
So, once again, impasse. You can see why I read the Herald letters back to front. I haven’t written in for a while, but I’m trying to conjure some creative idea whereby both Unionists and Nationalists might not merely say, “I could live with that”, but rather, “That’s a good idea. Let’s do it.”
I haven’t come up with it yet.
