The guardian is supposed to be a serious newspaper. I am having doubts about that on the basis of the coverage of the scottish independence debate. Kevin McKenna gets a regular platform in the Guardian and he is a buffoon. But even knowing that I was surprised at the sheer incompetence of his latest offering, in the sunday sister paper, the Observer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...end-of-commentsMr McKenna gets right to the heart of the matter in his opening: what matters is Nicola Sturgeon's clothes!
A secondary issue is whether she can run a good campaign despite the fact it is, according to Mr McKenna, hopeless. For the important point is her personal ambition within her party: where, I may add, there is no current vacancy for the top job. In any case it is a bit odd to devote part of a column influential because of its platform, to the observation that politicians might wish to succeed in their chosen career.
He goes on to say that Mr Pringle, an adviser to Mr Salmond and "chief spin doctor", according to Mr McKenna, is good at his job I get the impression that Mr McKenna thinks it is cheating to appoint someone competent: well given the quality of those on his side of the debate you can see his point.....
His next paragraph is name calling worthy of a primary school near you. Those of us who are not SNP supporters but yet want independence are "social misfits", "Walt Disney intellectuals " (no, I have no idea what that means, either), or folk who "join a cause at a moment's notice". In addition, the man who leads Yes Scotland does not smile enough: so it seems that Mr McKenna is not wholly sexist in his focus on Ms Sturgeon's clothes. The requirement to smile is usually reserved for women, so kudos to his inclusiveness here
Mr Salmond is then criticised for....being a politician.
In Mr McKenna's world the catholic church is extremely important: and not, for example, a body of ordinary people who have to suffer leadership which would not be out of place three centuries ago, in terms of its social policy. Maybe he thinks that same sex marriage will be compulsory in an independent scotland? Maybe he thinks catholics only think about sex and not, for example, economics or other things the rest of us think about? Maybe he thinks the high price of lamb here is due to the fact that it comes from baby catholics and not baby sheep?
Then he insults 16-17 year olds, as a sort of sideswipe: he seems to imagine that the wish to allow that group a vote on scotland's future is predicated on the idea that they are all madly patriotic in the narrowest sense: they aren't and nobody thinks they are: but neither are the homogenous on this issue, any more than catholics are. He is good at stereotype: you have to give him that
Next up: he does not like the time it is taking to prepare a white paper: because, of course, it is a doddle to make firm proposals about all the many aspects of a move to independence. Well given the quality of his thinking you can see why he would think that......
Moving swiftly on he states that we have been told that post independence Scotland will be a land of milk and honey: er, no. If we should choose that option many of us think that times will be very hard after the vote, because we do not think the settlement will be all that great. The expectation is shorthanded as " the bastards will take everything that is not nailed down" in my circle: a price which concerns many. We will see what actually can be negotiated and decide if the price is too high then: it will be high indeed to change my mind when this is the quality of the opposition
