ONLY rarely do we resist the need to attach conditions to our sympathy and goodwill when the recipient’s beliefs are not to our taste. This manifests itself in various forms – some more subtle than others.
I suppose the most common qualification is the one where we feel the need to proclaim loudly that in no way does our outbreak of common humanity mean that we have begun to endorse views that we have always considered to be wretched.
READ MORE: Tory leader Ruth Davidson opens up about self-harming
“Don’t get me wrong,” some of us might say, “I’m a Black Sabbath devotee and no fan of George Michael but I mourn his loss and extend my sympathy to those who loved him.”
Or: “I bow to no one in my disdain for all television cookery programmes but I was sorry to hear about the death of Fanny Craddock.” Why can’t we just express our sorrow without the need to do that signal virtuing thing? I’m as guilty of this as anyone.
READ MORE: Some reactions to Ruth Davidson's disclosure were shocking
Similarly, when politicians whose beliefs we revile feel the need to open up to an interviewer about periods in their lives when they endured pain and suffering or the ordeal of abuse, sometimes we only sullenly offer our prayers and support. We ascribe their testimony to an ulterior motive or silently nurse the suspicion that a runaway bandwagon has a new passenger.
“Johnny has cerebral palsy but perhaps he might want to review his voting choices.” God forbid that we might simply want to wish this person best wishes for the future and the hope that they have found peace in their lives and leave it at that.
I caught a whiff of this in some reactions to Ruth Davidson’s interview at the weekend where she talked about her battles as a young woman with depression, including the desolation of self-harming. Some responders felt the need to qualify their empathy by rebuking her for being a member of a political party which by its social policies, according to them, exacerbated mental health problems in some areas.
In doing so they failed to show any compassion at all or an understanding of the complex patterns of events and the body’s chemistry that can trigger problems. They merely used an individual’s pain to unleash their sanctimony.
I was moved by the Scottish Tory leader’s courage and can only assume she must have given this a great deal of thought and sought the counsel of loved ones before deciding to give details of her torment. I’m glad she opted to do this.
According to Scottish Action on Mental Health (SAMH), mental health problems affect one in four people in Scotland and yet according to the charity widespread stigma and discrimination towards sufferers remain, as well as many myths.
Ruth Davidson is admired by many people in this country who disagree profoundly with her political beliefs.
By talking about her suffering she may have made it a little easier for some tormented souls to come forward and ask for help. In doing so she may have helped save some lives. There will be many opportunities to attack her beliefs and her party’s politics in the future – her interview last weekend was not one of them. My heart went out to her and all those who must live with this pain that remains deeply misunderstood and subject to ignorance.
Public support for independence remains strong as ever
THOSE formidable forces in the UK which are implacably opposed to the idea of Scottish self-determination have waited in vain these last four years for the wind to disappear from the sails of independence. The absence of anything resembling a nailed-down, fully-costed and truly original policy from either the Scottish Conservatives or the Labour Party in Scotland requires them to take refuge in a dog-eared mantra - that Scotland doesn’t want independence or that the SNP are obsessed with it to the detriment of their ability to do the day job. I’m no great supporter of the SNP Government but no evidence has ever been produced to show that a desire for a second referendum has affected its competence one way or the other.
Four years and dozens of opinion polls after the first referendum the pro-independence numbers have held up at around 45% and occasionally spiked at 49%-50%. Those opposed to independence will claim uncertainty over Brexit is a major contributory factor in this and that once our future direction is fixed and the waters are calm once more, support for an independent Scotland will fall. The only problem with this theory though is that it works the other way too. All the uncertainty, all the predicted chaos would surely render the prospect of further upheaval a deeply unpleasant one.
Since September 18, 2014, we have had two changes of UK Government; a change of Prime Minister; a Labour opposition which has forgotten what it means to oppose. We’ve had accusations that one of our Nato partners is using the UK as a chemical war-games site while every day in the legislative life of another Nato partner is feeding time at the zoo.
Who would want another independence referendum when the UK and much of the world beyond is behaving like a drunk man with a kebab trying to access his mobile phone? Well, after all this, it seems that close to 50% of Scots still crave independence... and that’s before the campaigning and the grim comedy of the Unionists trying to explain away the inevitable Brexit apocalypse. We in the independence movement know this and the Unionists know it too.
A missed opportunity to be rid of Hampden Park
WHO will finally step forward and put Hampden Park, the worst national stadium in European football, out of its misery? Just when we thought that this facsimile of a football venue had finally ceased to be, it’s been spared for another few wretched years by a hastily gathered £5 million bail-out.
Hampden was once the pride and glory of Scottish football and admired throughout the world of football. It held all the European attendance records. Now it’s been reduced to a single-tier structure conveying all the atmosphere of a day out at the beach watching donkey-rides (which our national team’s tactical awareness often resembles these days). What do they think £5m is going to give Hampden, a nice paint-job every year; disco lights and a fancy scoreboard like Celtic Park?
Here was an opportunity to enfranchise the whole of Scotland in the adventures of our national team: Box-office games to Parkhead and Ibrox and other competitive fixtures to Edinburgh or Aberdeen;
friendlies to Inverness, Dundee, Paisley, Ayrshire and Lanarkshire. It’s what countries such as Spain, Italy and Germany do with their international games. But what do these countries know about football?
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel