HOMEPAGE NEWS ABOUT THE SALTIRE SOCIETY AWARDS & PANELS EVENTS COMMITTEES MAGAZINE BRANCHES HOW TO JOIN / MEMBERSHIP CONTACT US PUBLICATIONS SALTIRE SHOP LINKS

AUTUMN 2003 SUMMER 2004 WINTER 2004 SUMMER 2005 WINTER 2005 AUTUMN 2006         Politics and the press Murray Ritchie, former political editor of The Herald, calls for more political balance in the Scottish press. A few weeks ago Scotland on Sunday carried this eye-popping headline: 'Despite its critics, an independent Scotland is irreversible and must be nurtured' Not only was this apparent acceptance of independence as inevitable highly exceptional if not unprecedented for a Scottish newspaper, the article was the work of none other than John McTernan, the new policy adviser to the prime minister. Tony Blair. Newspaper readers in Scotland who constantly complain that the independence issue is either ignored or misrepresented by our media must have been stunned - until they took a closer look and read all of Mr McTernan's article and not just the headline. He did not quite argue that independence was irreversible - he said that of devolution - but he did insist that the present constitutional arrangement was not sustainable and that new powers were inevitable for the Scottish Parliament. 'Some have read the 2003 election results as a blow to nationalism from which it will not recover. It is, however, far form clear that that is the case,' he said, moving on to examine the justification for more constitutional reform, and to conclude: 'There is a need, at some point, to ask clearly and to answer unequivocally the question about whether our future lies in full independence.' Having just retired after a lifetime in Scottish journalism, where free discussion about any benefit from independence is regarded as too dangerous by half, I welcome this call for debate. Most Scottish newspapers are downright hostile to independence and those which are not are mainly indifferent. This is an auld sang, and an affront to democracy and free expression. Indeed it is more than that because it amounts to a conspiratorial denial of the existence of a political ambition which is attractive - sometimes obsessively so - to a significant section of the electorate. When I began in newspapers more than 45 years ago my father, who was non-political, worked on the Glasgow Herald where several senior journalists were aspiring Conservative MPs. Tory Party activism was regarded as the natural order and a good career move for those working on a strongly Unionist newspaper. Life is still like that on papers like the Daily Telegraph which has trenchant right-wing views. But the Telegraph sells mainly in England where those who disagree with its politics have rival newspapers to choose from. In Scotland we take anti-independence papers or none because of the self-denying ordinance editors practise on the most important division in Scottish politics. Some of my father's colleagues were active in the Labour Party but had to keep the fact quiet for fear of their careers. Not so very much has changed in Scottish newspapers except that the party which now commands most support among proprietors and senior journalists is Labour, the new Unionist establishment. The SNP hardly has a look-in. When I was Scottish political editor of The Herald and covering the 1999 Holyrood elections my paper was denied hundreds of thousands of pounds of advertising from Labour-supporting businesses because, in the words of a senior Labour figure who picked favoured media outlets, we were 'not sufficiently supportive'. This sort of political sectarianism is nothing new. For generations Scottish journalism has been littered with examples of independence- friendly writers finding life unusually complicated. I once made a light-hearted speech at a private function where I confessed personal support for Scottish Nationalism and was immediately reported by a Labour spin doctor to my editor. I wasn't fired, thanks to an understanding editor (but the spin doctor was, eventually). When a bright young BBC journalist stood for the SNP in a Falkirk West by-election, he was promptly banished to covering sport in London. When the SNP leader took a wife who was a BBC political correspondent she was bumped into general reporting. When Dorothy-Grace Elder stood as an SNP candidate she had her Sunday column killed off. At present I cannot think of a single columnist who is paid or even permitted regularly to advance the case for independence - while many others make lucrative careers by routinely rubbishing the idea. Contrast this with the easy ride for Labour (or Tory) supporting journalists. The divide between Labour Party employment and political journalism is easily crossed. For years Scottish Television was regarded by many as a Labour club. The political editor was the daughter of a former Labour cabinet minister, and the political correspondent was a Labour activist who went on to spin for Donald Dewar. The present head of news is a former Labour spin doctor, and, of course, the former SMG chairman. Lord Gus Macdonald, became a Labour minister. BBC Scotland's main political programmes are produced by the husband of a Labour ex-cabinet minister and Labour's current spinner is a former BBC broadcaster. It is only fair, indeed crucial, to point out that these individuals were and are all honest journalists who proved themselves perfectly capable of questioning Labour when the need arose. My quibble is that they obviously had little time for independence and were unlikely, therefore, to suggest testing public opinion by putting the subject up for objective examination. And, even if they had felt moved to do so, they would have found little encouragement from their employers. The Scottish media's unfair treatment of independence should not be put down simply to prejudice on the part of pundits or political correspondents. Rather it is more to do with newspaper ownership and the culture in Scotland where Unionism, whether Tory, Labour or Liberal Democrat, remains ingrained. I know of at least one case where a respected editor suggested to his management that it might be useful and exciting to support independence (but not specifically the SNP) and was promptly warned to back off. The thinking was that sympathy for nationalism would so offend advertisers that revenues would collapse. There was, of course, not the slightest evidence to support this fear and this commercial knee-jerking ignores the equally obvious possibility that some advertisers might be encouraged to place their business with a newspaper which endorsed independence. For a time Rupert Murdoch, of all people, allowed the Sun in Scotland to support independence. The SNP derived no noticeable benefit. Nor, apparently, did the Sun itself which eventually cooled on the idea and last year fired Jim Sillars. The Sunday Herald has shown itself fairer than most to independence. My old paper, almost alone, has made strenuous efforts to be even-handed with the SNP, but also to criticise the Nationalists when they deserve it. The trouble is that being fair to the SNP or Scottish Socialists is routinely interpreted as being unfair to their Unionist rivals. All this means that those newspaper readers in Scotland who support independence - more than 50% according to some polls and including, it is said, up to 40% of Labour voters - are generally starved of any editorial expression of their views, What is especially unfair is how the SNP's disappointment at the 2003 Holyrood elections has been interpreted by a hostile Scottish media as a stalling of the independence cause. Yes, the SNP fared poorly (as did Labour) in the elections but independence itself did rather well - well enough to put more independence-supporting MSPs into the Holyrood chamber than in 1999. What's more they and their Unionist colleagues are now demanding a wide range of new powers, if for different political reasons. Everyone seems to agree, except (publicly) the Executive, that control of taxation should pass from Westminster to Holyrood. Many MSPs are vociferous in seeking more power over transport, broadcasting, fisheries and Scotland's representation in Europe. At the same time there is rising resentment among many Westminster MPs about Scottish MPs voting on English-only affairs. All this surely means Scottish politics is moving closer to, not farther from, independence but you would never know it from the Scottish press. A dam is building, a dam of the sort which burst when the Conservatives denied devolution and were swept away. History appears to be repeating itself as the pressure rises for another constitutional advance with independence as the inevitable destination. How long can the Scottish media continue to ignore it? Top of page Tartan Day The Scottish reaction to Tartan Day in the United States has been confused to say the least. Opinions vary from those who see it as a great way to promote Scottish business opportunities, to those who denounce it for its phoniness as a made-up tradition. Some argue that an emphasis on Tartan has more to do with Brigadoon than modern Scotland and that the event simply caricatures the kitsch aspects of the nation’s culture. In short, it fails to convey an accurate picture of contemporary Scotland. Also, its association with right-wing Republicanism causes alarm among the majority of Scotland’s commentators who belong to a liberal / left tradition. Tartan Day, which was inaugurated by the US senate, is a celebration of the achievement of Scots-Americans and, controversially, its date, the 4th of April was chosen because, it is claimed, the American Declaration of Independence was modelled on the 1320 Scottish Declaration of Arbroath. There is no real evidence (as yet) to show any linkage between Arbroath and the Declaration of Independence, so in addition to right-wingism and tartanry, we can add bad history. In short, it is cheap, nasty and bogus, as many commentators remind their Scottish readers every April. Yet, what tends to be forgotten is the event is first and foremost one in which one group of Americans chose to celebrate an aspect of their American identity in a way that they deem appropriate. There is no Scottish ownership of Tartan Day. The connection with Scotland is largely incidental, after all, it is a celebration by those who left the place. The values, culture and achievements which are being commended in the United States are those which are perceived to make an important contribution to being American, not because of their importance to Scotland. Our nation is simply a place of origin that provided people and characteristics that found their true and ultimate expression across the Atlantic. So for Scottish commentators to condemn this group of Americans for the celebration of their national identity is odd to say the least. Put simply, it is none of our business. In order to understand the Tartan Day phenomenon, it is necessary to see it first and foremost as an American event and to locate its development within that society. Historically, the Scots in America were never known for their collective presence, nor for that matter, were they known for taking an interest in the old country. The contrast with the Irish or Italians, for example, could not be starker. True to stereotypical image, the Scots, unlike most other immigrant groups, did not send significant amounts of money home. Nor did they form a political presence in the United States. The only party to try and energise the émigré community into taking an interest in the Scottish political scene was the SNP, which until recently, found that it could elicit next to no support. For most of the twentieth century, Scots Americans were not interested in the old country. The reasons for this are to be found in the emigration experience of the twentieth century. Contrary to popular image, those Scots who left for the land of the free were largely family groups of the urban, working class, who went not to the South, but to the industrial cities of the north. Until the sixties, there were more people born in Scotland living in the United States than Edinburgh, and between the wars, Scottish emigration was on a per capita basis, ten times higher than that of England and Wales. It was the lure of better wages and a higher standard of living that attracted them. In contrast to many immigrants from the south and east of Europe, the Scots were educated, had skills useful to a modern industrial economy and spoke the native language. Also, the fact that they had no great political causes to promote for the old country meant that they fitted in with the increasingly isolationist mood of Americans following the First World War. Scots found that many of their own values and traditions had a familiar echo in their new adopted homeland. The President born in the log cabin is not too far removed from the lad o’pairts, the notion of meritocracy, hard-work and getting on in life were similar to values they had espoused in their own society. The only difference being that such things were achievable in the United States. Scotland between the wars was one of contracting social and economic opportunities and the period after 1945 was not substantially better. In contrast to their own socie ty, the skilled engineer, the tradesman and the commercial salesman found a greater appreciation for his skills on the other side of the pond. Gender was also a significant factor. The arrival of Hollywood in the thirties showed to women a different world. The readily available domestic technology that took the strain out of the backbreaking housework, which was the lot of the ordinary housewife, was a remarkable inducement to leave. In the sixties and seventies a disproportionate number of qualified women left for American shores, no doubt helped by the endemic sexism of Scottish society which refused to believe that females could be doctors or lawyers. The contrast between the old world and the new world was such that few could be bothered to remember the former. Given the fact that the Scots could so readily assimilate into their new society and that for skilled and professional people there was probably a bit of a stigma in coming from such a down-trodden and poverty stricken society, it is hardly surprising that the Scots American community is largely silent throughout the twentieth century in the United States. In any case, what was there to be proud of? Over-crowding, poverty, low wages and poor opportunities meant that few remembered the homeland with any great affection. Gratitude to the new outweighed loyalty to the old. So why did Scottish Americanism emerge with such force in the last decade? Why are the Scots the fastest growing ethnic group in American society jumping from 4 million to 14 million in the last census? The answer to this is to be found in changes within American society. The phenomenon of ‘roots’ has meant that it is no longer fashionable simply to be an American; it is necessary to be a ‘hyphenated American’. We now live in an age where identity is not only a matter of choice, but almost one of consumption. For those who wish to give themselves an impeccable American identity, then Scots is right tip their street. It provides an old world identity that can make an American even more American by seeming to tap into a tradition that can be traced back to before the Revolution. All of which leads to a final, and somewhat disturbing point. Scottishness and Celticism have been appropriated by many in the neo secessionist movement in the South. While many celebrate their Scottish ancestry in a harmless and innocent way, it should be pointed out that such activities can look exclusive and menacing to outsiders. In an unintended way, one effect of the celebration of Celtic or Scots ancestry is not so much the importance of those it embraces, but those it excludes. Richard Finlay is Director of the Research Centre in Scottish History, University of Strathclyde. He is author of a number of books including Modern Scotland, 1914— 2000. The above article is an abridged version of a paper given at the Saltire Society's international conference in Seplember 2003. Top of page