The generous actor
who pretended to
lose his lines
John Cameron
More about climate change
Andrew Hook
My account of the Observer’s recent feature focusing on the views of five Scottish writers on the current independence v union debate has evoked some excited reactions. The choice of authors to appear in the feature has been particularly contentious. But are these complaints entirely fair?
Maggie Craig (15 September) believes that newspaper editors are biased towards a small group of literary authors as appropriate contributors to a debate of this kind. ‘Perish the thought’, she writes, ‘that they would seek the opinion of any writer whose work can be described – contemptuously – as popular’. As it happens, Edwin Moore (14 September) had already made this point. ‘Why no Rankin, Rowling or Smith? And why none of the truly wild cards, such as Kelman, Brookmyre, Leonard?’.
Well I have no inside knowledge about how newspaper editors or feature-writers go about their business, but it seems to me there is a degree of naivety about these complaints. If the Observer had discovered that Rankin, Rowling and Smith were willing to commit themselves on the independence issue, I strongly suspect that would have made front-page, not cultural section, news. And that too is exactly why, if approached, they might well have said no to the paper.
Edwin Moore goes on to suggest that ‘the Observer had a conclusion and sought out the writers to back that conclusion’. This strikes me as highly improbable. Why should the Observer have a position on this Scottish debate? And if it does, why should it be a broadly pro-independence one? In fact I suspect the so-called ‘wild cards’ were not approached because their position on the issue of independence has been pretty clear for many years. As I suggested originally, the Observer probably invited authors whose opinions they expected to vary rather more than proved to be the case.
Unlike Maggie Craig and Edwin Moore, Jim Henderson (15 September) is not upset by the Observer. He is upset by me. To my mind his enthusiasm for the cause of unionism has led him to misread completely what I was saying. Rather than writing a ‘loaded piece’ (presumably of a pro-independence kind), and seeking ‘to vaguely intimidate those of the unionist persuasion …from expressing their views’, I was doing almost exactly the opposite. What struck me about the Observer feature was that not one of the five Scottish writers chose to make a strong case for the maintenance of the union. All five seemed to feel that an independent Scotland in the near future was not unlikely – and whatever their reservations, they were not too unhappy about such an outcome.
I was interested in neither agreeing or disagreeing with the writers’ views. It never crossed my mind that a reader would think that by summarising such views I was agreeing with them. What did cross my mind was the question of how representative of Scottish writers and artists their opinions were.
What conclusion did I come to? That whatever the intentions of Scottish voters in any future referendum on independence, in the current political and cultural context, pro-union sentiments do not have a strong profile. That is what the Observer feature turns out to confirm.
A hollow apology
from the
Daily Record
Kenneth Roy
The number of reported incidents of domestic abuse rose from 107 (the average after a weekend meeting between Rangers and Celtic) to 142 (compared with 67 in a weekend without Old Firm football).
Seven grown-up men were assigned to this occasion – Keith Jackson, Scott McDermott, Murdo MacLeod, James Traynor, Hugh Keevins, Jim McLean and Mark Hateley. Most of those considered important enough to warrant a picture byline looked suitably grim – who wouldn’t in the circumstances? – yet their various overlapping accounts of the experience were notable for a noisy, excitable, over-heated prose. Much of it would have been incomprehensible to anyone unfamiliar with the nicknames of the participants. The Rangers manager was ‘Coisty’, his Celtic equivalent ‘Lenny’, while the star of the afternoon was someone called ‘Naisy’ (‘The Naisy Cutter’ as he was described) and the Rangers victory was dedicated to another mysterious character name of ‘Greegs’. Do even schoolboys talk in this way any more? The overwhelming impression, assisted by photographs of open-mouthed footballers in various poses of ecstasy or dejection, was one of swaggering machismo playing to a certain West of Scotland self-image: a dysfunctional one.
Two days before, the Record’s sports staff had offended the management of Celtic Football Club by publishing a back-page headline which read: ‘Who’s More Hated at Ibrox (is it Lennon or the Taxman?)’ – the latter a reference to the Rangers club’s present difficulties with HM Revenue and Customs. Celtic retaliated by withdrawing ‘co-operation’, whatever that means. Did it mean that Messrs Jackson, McDermott, MacLeod, Traynor, Keevins, McLean and Hateley were refused admission to the press box, a right traditionally reserved by aggrieved managements? Did they report the match from the crowd? If so, which end? I cannot tell you. Football journalism is a closed order. No one grasses.
By yesterday, the Record was contrite. It published an apology for using the word ‘hated’ in connection with Mr Lennon and said that its headline ‘was not intended to stoke up feelings ahead of yesterday’s match’. But, even if this was not the intention, could it have been the effect? The number of reported incidents of domestic abuse rose from 107 (the average after a weekend meeting between Rangers and Celtic) to 142 (compared with 67 in a weekend without Old Firm football). It is impossible to say how much inflammatory press coverage – in particular the aggressive use of headlines and pictures – contributes to the private misery following these tribal rituals, but it feels increasingly like part of the problem.
Kenneth Roy is editor of the Scottish Review
