MONDAY’S announcement by the First Minister of the intention to call another referendum not only puts Scotland on notice about another constitutional vote, but also its politicians on notice regarding their behaviour. In many ways 2014 was a novelty and in the main behaviour was not just acceptable but something for the country to take pride in. The throwing of an egg and Loyalist thuggery in George Square were unacceptable but benign in comparison to what others have suffered elsewhere. Other jurisdictions could learn from the ability to debate a major constitutional issue democratically.
And that is how it must remain. It will require strong advice to supporters about their behaviour and action against activists who disregard it, and restraint and respect by the leadership on both sides. It will be a challenge, as passions have been running high and arguably the stakes appear greater this time. Both sides know defeat will be for the foreseeable future thereafter. For that reason the tone of the campaigns and the tenor of the leading voices matters.
“Whitabootery” is the disease that afflicts Scottish fitba, where there is an inability to accept wrongdoings without pointing the finger at perceived transgressions of the other side. Recently, it has spread into the body politic in Scotland, and it needs to be nipped in the bud now for the good of us all. It may be down to keyboard warriors, but it all helps to create an atmosphere that surrounds the political debate. There must be mutual respect and tolerance.
The threats to the First Minister and other political leaders, publicised at the weekend, are a direct consequence of it. As in football, what starts off as banter can be both far from benign, and can quickly escalate and degenerate. Both sides must be mindful of that.
Scotland has been spared the political violence and tragedies that have afflicted other countries. The murder of Jo Cox, though, was a wake-up call as to where intemperate comments and typed abuse can lead.
Scottish politicians have been fortunate in the low level of security they’ve required. That’s something that the country should take pride in, as with the conduct in general of political debate. Moreover, once security is tightened, it rarely lessens. Public access to politicians is reduced and both are the losers as a consequence.
I recall meeting my Swedish counterpart as Justice Secretary and she was amazed at how little I had. A young, female private secretary and an elderly driver were all I invariably travelled with. However, they had suffered the killings of both Olav Palme and Anna Lindh. Following each there was national angst and reviews resulting in increased security. It wasn’t reduced, and became the norm.
Security reviews for Scottish politicians take place on a regular basis. The personal security for the First Minister required to be increased during the first referendum as it was clear risks had increased. It hasn’t been reduced since. Scottish politicians are briefed by police and regular assessments made. MSPs and MPs are still remarkably privileged in their ability to mingle safely and interact unrestricted.
It’s something to cherish. Enduring the odd rude idiot is but a minor inconvenience to remain accessible to the community. In addition/ being viewed as approachable and accessible was something I was proud of as a politician. However, to ensure it remains that way the political culture must remain benign. The keyboard warriors need reined in and those who should know better must moderate inflammatory language. Recently, elected members. not just armchair activists have used warlike terminology in their comments. That must cease. When it’s all over we need to live together, in Scotland or the UK.
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