Fundamental to Scottish nationalism is a critique of the UK state, and indeed there's a lot to be critical about.
However, to that extent it's surely a bit hypocritical of nationalists to characterise their opponents' criticism of certain other small countries as "denigration", or suchlike.
A couple of regular contributors to the Scotsman's opinion pages - Alex Orr and Joan McAlpine - are particularly noteworthy in this regard. For example, last year the latter said, in relation to statements from Labour MSPs: "We haven't heard this much vitriol about Eire since The Rev Paisley in his pomp." She also used the words "Paddy-bashers", "foolish" and "offensive".
Both Mr Orr and Ms McAlpine are SNP list candidates in this May's Holyrood elections. Another such candidate - George Kerevan - recently used the Scotsman's opinion pages to accuse Ireland of forsaking "civic values" during the economic boom, and it thus "suffered accordingly".
So I wonder where precisely Mr Kerevan stands on the McAlpine scale of "Paddy-bashing", "foolishness" and "offensiveness", or are there different rules for SNP list candidates than for the rest of us?
Or what about this earlier piece from Kenny MacAskill regarding Dublin's taxi trade: "Even with checks the quality of vehicles declined, jeopardising safety, and assaults and rapes by unregulated drivers soared. Old vehicles not fit for purpose were on the road with drivers who neither knew their way about nor were bothered about how they treated passengers."
Surely if someone is making a legitimate point about something pertinent to another country, and that involves an element of criticism, then it shouldn't be used as an excuse for the kind of language used by Messrs Orr & McAlpine. As indeed the self-evident double standards surely demonstrate.
Thus perhaps it would be more appropriate to praise Mr Kerevan for his realism and candour rather than accuse him of denigrating Ireland.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Er, I think the difference between Kerevan and the Labour/Tory etc is that Kerevan was not attacking them for political gain. The SNP's opponents attitude was "look at Ireland, though they were airchie, the Nats held them up as models, ha-ha-ha!"
And of course in the Tories there has been a part of that party that has never forgiven Irish secession (despite their malignant hand in it - support for Carson's UVF maybe and making the gun respectable in Irish politics) and like seeing the Irish state automatically in trouble.
So lets move away from these islands and go to central Europe. In 1918 the Czech Lands (some of the richest and prosperous parts of the Habsburg state) seceeded from Viennese rule - after nearly 400 years of union (voluntarily entered into) I might add in the Austrian state - and helped to form Czechoslovakia. The state prospered and was the tenth most industialised and wealthiest countries in the world.
Then 1938 came. Then the communists took over after the war. Then 1968. By 1989, the Czechs had been reduced to some of the poorest people in Europe.
What would you think of a Viennese politician having a laugh at the misfortunes of the Czech people over the decades and saying this is what you get from breaking with Vienna. Would you join in with the laughing or call them sick?
"Er, I think the difference between Kerevan and the Labour/Tory etc is that Kerevan was not attacking them for political gain. The SNP's opponents attitude was "look at Ireland, though they were airchie, the Nats held them up as models, ha-ha-ha!""
Well that's the point surely? They were ridiculing the SNP rather than Ireland per se.
And SNP list candidate George Kerevan wasn't "attacking them for political gain"? Did you read his article?
And even assuming there was no political gain involved, that wouldn't make any difference to whether it was Paddy-bashing, presumably?
Granted, he didn't labour the point about Ireland (and Iceland), and it's not easy to discern nuance and tone from the written word, but even you use the word "attacking" in relation to what he said.
And I did mention a *scale* in relation to Ms McAlpine's Paddy-bashing characterisation; I wasn't directly comparing George Kerevan's points.
As for the history lesson, again I don't think it's a case of Paddy-bashing so much as SNP-bashing, and of course Iceland's history is a bit different from Ireland's, but the latter wouldn't make for an easy soundbite from Ms McAlpine.
Surely it's legitimate to use Ireland to make a political point about the SNP's economic policies, so how precisely can this be done without some characterising this as Paddy-bashing, or is it the characterisation that's in reality the problem?
JUST SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT I WROTE (AND STAND BY):
"Scotland needs to reconnect with the traditional civic values that originally made her - virtues we are in danger of losing and which can only be recovered through independence.
"They include self-reliance tempered with the duty to civic involvement; thrift and investment for the long term; reverence for high academic attainment; and rewards commensurate only with hard work and qualifications. These are the lost values that once made Scottish banking a byword for probity.
"Such virtues are not unique to Scotland. They are common to many small nations and frontier societies. The small nations that forsook such virtues during the recent boom, Ireland and Iceland, suffered accordingly."
George KEREVAN
Thanks, Mr Kerevan, but I'm not really sure what your point is.
I linked to your article and don't think I misrepresented what you said about Ireland?
Post a Comment