How should we describe these riots as UK or England's riots? Also was it wrong for the First Minister to point out that the riots were only happening in England and not the rest of the UK?
This came to a head when several English journalist recommended on Twitter that we read a blog about the question why scotlands neds arent rioting This blog is written by a scotsman living in London, actually a Westminster correspondent. I have become aware of how some Scots who head south in the media become very 'British' and start viewing Scotland & the Scots from a different view point as resident Scots do. It is also obvious that Tourcil (the blogger) is not a SNP supporter. So how much of his dislike of the First Minister affected his views.
Also while writing this blog, my first attempt at a proper blog, others have been criticising the First Minister (FM).
One of the main reasons that the FM wanted to point out that the riots were in England and not in Scotland was that as a country Scotland is very dependant on tourism, Do we want tourist to cancel their bookings and stay at home because they think they maybe attacked here? Remember the Edinburgh Festival has only just started. What would happen if people suddenly started to cancel bookings? As FM, he needed to reassure the visitors that Scotland was safe for them to visit. Is this not a valid reason of pointing out that the riots were not in Scotland?
On the reasoning as to why Scotland has not had riots, the arguments were based on having to pass rival gangs, that we do not have enough black teenagers & that the wealthy of Scotland were not wealthy enough.
From what I have heard, the gangs in the various town were messaging each other to join up. Rioters were also coming from different towns into London. So the can't the Scots travel and would the gangs would not call a truce, if not why?
The racial argument is strange. Firstly it seems as if the looters are a mix of racial origins. A lot of the faces of the looters I have seen are white. Scotland is a country that has welcomed migration into the country. We have been actively encouraging it, as our population has been falling to alarming levels. Just last week there was a report saying that at last our population is increasing, mostly due to migration into Scotland. Of course we do have to be careful that we do not become complacent but is it not good that Scotland does not have the same racial tensions as found in other parts of the UK.
As for the wealth, is this not part of the view that Scotland is too poor to be an independent country and needs the wealth created in London? I know Edinburgh better than Glasgow. To say that there is not a huge gap of have and have nots in that city cannot be correct. Some of the housing estate in Edinburgh are so depressing and compare those to the new town.
The wealth argument in any case is false. Not all of the looters in London were unemployed, surviving on welfare, as their parents are to. They come from various backgrounds, some with good jobs and as I said before were able to afford to travel in to the riot towns.
The wealth argument fails on another point, Birmingham, Nottingham, Manchester. These cities are not as wealthy as London. They don't have the bankers on huge bonuses buying ever more expensive cars & other outward signs of wealth.
Coming back to whose riots they are, I did feel that they should be described as UK Riots until i thought more closely about it. We need to say to the world, we don't have riots it is safe to come and visit us. Our economy insists that we do.
Should we be smug that the riots are all down south? No. It is terrible what is happening and we are a part of the UK. As part of the UK we should do everything possible to help the other parts of the UK. I was born in England, worked in London for 30 years, have family living there.
If these riots were happening in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, etc. would they be called UKRiots by the media? You can answer that.
This came to a head when several English journalist recommended on Twitter that we read a blog about the question why scotlands neds arent rioting This blog is written by a scotsman living in London, actually a Westminster correspondent. I have become aware of how some Scots who head south in the media become very 'British' and start viewing Scotland & the Scots from a different view point as resident Scots do. It is also obvious that Tourcil (the blogger) is not a SNP supporter. So how much of his dislike of the First Minister affected his views.
Also while writing this blog, my first attempt at a proper blog, others have been criticising the First Minister (FM).
One of the main reasons that the FM wanted to point out that the riots were in England and not in Scotland was that as a country Scotland is very dependant on tourism, Do we want tourist to cancel their bookings and stay at home because they think they maybe attacked here? Remember the Edinburgh Festival has only just started. What would happen if people suddenly started to cancel bookings? As FM, he needed to reassure the visitors that Scotland was safe for them to visit. Is this not a valid reason of pointing out that the riots were not in Scotland?
On the reasoning as to why Scotland has not had riots, the arguments were based on having to pass rival gangs, that we do not have enough black teenagers & that the wealthy of Scotland were not wealthy enough.
From what I have heard, the gangs in the various town were messaging each other to join up. Rioters were also coming from different towns into London. So the can't the Scots travel and would the gangs would not call a truce, if not why?
The racial argument is strange. Firstly it seems as if the looters are a mix of racial origins. A lot of the faces of the looters I have seen are white. Scotland is a country that has welcomed migration into the country. We have been actively encouraging it, as our population has been falling to alarming levels. Just last week there was a report saying that at last our population is increasing, mostly due to migration into Scotland. Of course we do have to be careful that we do not become complacent but is it not good that Scotland does not have the same racial tensions as found in other parts of the UK.
As for the wealth, is this not part of the view that Scotland is too poor to be an independent country and needs the wealth created in London? I know Edinburgh better than Glasgow. To say that there is not a huge gap of have and have nots in that city cannot be correct. Some of the housing estate in Edinburgh are so depressing and compare those to the new town.
The wealth argument in any case is false. Not all of the looters in London were unemployed, surviving on welfare, as their parents are to. They come from various backgrounds, some with good jobs and as I said before were able to afford to travel in to the riot towns.
The wealth argument fails on another point, Birmingham, Nottingham, Manchester. These cities are not as wealthy as London. They don't have the bankers on huge bonuses buying ever more expensive cars & other outward signs of wealth.
Coming back to whose riots they are, I did feel that they should be described as UK Riots until i thought more closely about it. We need to say to the world, we don't have riots it is safe to come and visit us. Our economy insists that we do.
Should we be smug that the riots are all down south? No. It is terrible what is happening and we are a part of the UK. As part of the UK we should do everything possible to help the other parts of the UK. I was born in England, worked in London for 30 years, have family living there.
If these riots were happening in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, etc. would they be called UKRiots by the media? You can answer that.
No comments:
Post a Comment