Friday, October 08, 2010
I regret that the Scotsman decided to give space to Anne Ross's intemperate attack on Ivor Tiefenbrun for his defence of the union. There is a case for (& against) separation & it would have been entirely proper for her to have made it. She made no attempt to do so & instead used most of the letter to remind us that he is Jewish & thus apparently not entitled to express an opinion. Such arguments do not convince that a separate nationalist Scotland would be an attractive place.Only editing is that they changed "the Scotsman" in the first line to "you" which, suggests they are justifiably embarrassed at publishing the original letter, & separating the first paragraph into 2, which is a distinct improvement.
Mr Tiefenbrun is clearly a very competent, creative & intelligent person. Such people are usually worth listening to, even if you disagree with them. Holyrood is not overburdened with such.
The 4th online response to it is to deny that Ms Ross's letter was anti-Jewish & then goes on to make a silly, obviously untrue anti-Jewish remark. The original letter is here & you can see that it did indeed concentrate on ethnicity & avoided any actual argument for separation.
The haven't published a letter the day before about nuclear - ah well can't have everything. I will have to do a round up of unpublished letters soon.
Yesterday's blog on the cost of the Forth Bridge get a link in the Guardian's Edinburgh section "although he's a Glasgow blogger" (& although he has been barred from the Guardian website for knowing his facts, but I assume the right hand knoweth not what the left hand has been censoring).