Smart debate

Share this article
0
Have your say

george Kerevan’s perspective on the independence debate (Opinion, 2 August) appeared both constructive and thought-provoking. It continues to be disappointing for those who would welcome a broadly 
positive debate about the future of our country, inside or outside of the Union, that others who have been afforded the privileged positions of having their views regularly printed in The Scotsman, such as Messrs Wilson and Kelly, have failed to exploit those positions by advancing ideas on how radical change could be effected from within the Union.

Perhaps the truth is that they themselves cannot see how this can be achieved and rather than be honest with those whose aspirations they betrayed in the past these writers are simply content to continue peddling the myths that sustained their past political lives.

Returning to the thrust of Kerevan’s view, which was to promote a more radical vision for a newly independent Scotland than the seemingly less-disruptive proposals of Alex Salmond and the SNP, this would appear to condense an argument of how pragmatic should be that all-
important first step into independence.

While personally I would like to think that an objectively informed Scottish public would indeed support Kerevan’s vision, I regretfully have yet to see evidence that the media in Scotland, from writers at The Scotsman to interviewers at the BBC, are generally raising the level of debate to enable this to happen.

Certainly there are some notable exceptions, but as long as Lesley Riddoch, Isabel Fraser and others who bravely stand up for objective and fair debate are fighting against such a formidable media army of Union self-interest perhaps Salmond’s instincts will be more in tune with political reality in Scotland.

Stan Grodynski

Longniddry

East Lothian