BRUCE Crawford did his best. The former SNP minister and potential Presiding Officer was at his most reasonable when he appealed for MSPs to treat one another kindly.
“I implore all of us who take part in this great debate from across the parties in this Parliament, let’s lead from the front and show respect for each other’s point of view,” he said to applause.
A nice thought, but the first half of the two-day debate on whether Holyrood should have the power to stage a second independence referendum was steeped in rancour and division.
If there is to be new plebiscite, it is clear it will be far uglier and angrier than the last one.
In the key vote before the first referendum, MSPs unanimously agreed in November 2013 to pass the required bill.
There was no such consensus yesterday. It was trench warfare.
From the moment Nicola Sturgeon stood up to speak, opposition MSPs tried to throw her off her stride by make interventions - a trick later reciprocated by the SNP minister Kevin Stewart.
The whole basis for the proceedings was questioned, as the SNP and Greens were accused of lacking clear mandates and ignoring the will of the people three years ago.
The pro-UK parties tried to put a question mark over the final decision, which is non-binding, pointing out the SNP government has ignored a series of awkward votes against it of late, yet now holds up a vote in the Scottish Parliament as the pinnacle of democracy.
There was also a slew of insults. One SNP MSP said there was a gang of social media “abusers” on the Labour side, while a Tory likened Ms Sturgeon to “a fanatic”.
Some say the first referendum was a giant party. The next looks like the monstrous hangover.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel