Reasoned debate

2
Have your say

There is irony contained in the letter (4 May) from Alexander McKay, though it seems to be
entirely lost on him.

He writes in defence of his Unionist cohorts, Andrew HN Gray and Alexander Gallagher, appealing for a reasoned debate on the question of independence.

I have to say that reasonableness is not a quality immediately apparent in the public contributions of either of these 
gentlemen.

Ruth Marr highlights that point in her letter (same day), when she notes that Mr Gray’s idea of positive debate is to heap insults on countries that have achieved independence from despotic states such as Yugoslavia and the USSR, implying that these countries now yearn to return to the yokes which they have shed.

And here is the irony. Mr McKay finishes his letter with an appeal for the debate to 
be conducted without personal insult, then returns to his 
favourite bête noir, with an 
unwarranted, vicious personal 
attack on Alex Salmond. To use his football metaphor, straight red for McKay.

Douglas Turner

Derby Street

Edinburgh

I agree with Brian Watt (Letters, 3 May) regarding your paper’s previous commitment to impartial reporting.

I have noted several headlines over the past few months relating to a “separate” Scotland only to find upon reading the article that this word is not mentioned at all by any of the people quoted.

I have been a Scotsman reader for about 50 years and was originally attracted to your newspaper because of its impartial stand on political matters.

I feel, however, that this impartiality has been lacking in recent months and would urge that you revert back to your neutral stance in the future.

Watt Smellie

Kepscaith Road

Whitburn

Back to the top of the page