Neil and Carlaw to discuss 'improving political culture'
Launching the initiative, Eddie Barnes, Director of the John Smith Institute, said: 'Politics is still the best way to make change in society but we know too many young people are turning their backs on democratic engagement because they don't believe it matters or because of the toxicity of our public debate.
READ MORE:
'Political differences of opinion have always existed and indeed are fundamental to the democratic process. But whereas in the past people were able to express those differences respectfully, we now live in an era in which rancour, toxicity and even abuse are all too commonplace.
'The consequences are worrying: when we asked young people whether they backed democracy over dictatorship, more than a third said they'd support dictatorship.
'It doesn't have to be this way. We can continue to disagree on issues, but what matters is the way in which we do so.
'In short, we need to learn how to disagree more agreeably – with courtesy, civility and in an atmosphere of mutual respect."
Dr Macklin, who is co-hosting the event, said: 'I have always been deeply interested in the political process, and whilst I am not affiliated to any one party, I believe it is vital that we do more to engage younger people in a positive way with politics.
'The toxicity we witness all too often these days is having a profoundly corrosive effect not only on our day-to-day political debate, but on the foundations on which our politics sits."
A recent opinion poll of younger adults commissioned by the John Smith Centre found that while most believe in democracy, they fear for its future, with 63 per cent believing that democracy in the UK is 'in trouble'. There was also a strong call for 'better politics', involving more honest, more open debate.
This week's event is envisaged as the first in a series of similar events in schools across Scotland, to be facilitated by the John Smith Centre, in which other leading political figures will take part in debate and discussion on the way forward for the political process.
Looking ahead to Monday's event, Mr Carlaw said: 'I'm delighted to be taking part in the very first event in this new initiative, and to have the opportunity to engage in political debate in front of an audience of senior pupils in Kilmarnock.
'Alex and myself have crossed swords rhetorically many times over the years, and will no doubt continue to hold opposing views on many issues, but I hope that by taking part in this event we can demonstrate that it is possible to do so in a way that is positive, respectful and constructive.'
Mr Neil said: 'Engaging younger people with politics in a positive way is absolutely essential, not least given the level of polarisation we are currently witnessing.
'I was very happy to accept the invitation from the John Smith Centre and Marie to participate in this event, and I look forward to discussion with Jackson, with whom I have had many lively but respectful debates with over the years.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
JK Rowling divides gender critics - but is it permanent?
Ms Rowling has been a vocal critic of the constitutional divide for more than a decade, voting No in the 2014 referendum and donation £1 million to the Better Together campaign. Equally though, she has always maintained friendships with people on both sides of the debate. Ms Rowling and the transgender exclusionary movement share a common dislike for the former first minister, given that she spearheaded the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill that set fire to the debate. It is surprising, then, that Ms Rowling's review of Ms Sturgeon's memoir caused such a schism in the movement. Ms Rowling took particular issue with the former first minister's argument that the independence debate was not "unpleasant and divisive". She wrote in her review that No voters were "being threatened with violence and to f*** off out of Scotland, quizzed on the amount of Scottish blood that ran in their veins, accused of treachery and treason". It immediately caused a divide. Pro-independence blogger Wings Over Scotland stated it had "ripped open an old wound between a bunch of gender-critical people who were getting along just fine". And getting along just fine they were. Arguably, the gender critical movement was at an all-time harmonious high. When the Supreme Court ruling linked the terms "woman" and "man" to biological sex in the Equality Act 2010, the triumph from campaigners was inescapable. And the employment tribunal between Sandie Peggie and NHS Fife reinvigorated the gender critical community with 10 days of non-stop news of their cause. After Ms Rowling's review, social media was awash with conflicting views: those urging pro-independence voters not to conflate the constitutional issue with the campaign for women's rights. Read more: But others felt that it was only right to call out the Harry Potter author. High profile figures joined in to contradict her version of events. Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry said she felt Ms Rowling's take may have exaggerated the bad behaviour during the referendum. The author's review omits "any reference to bad behaviour by Better Together supporters which also occurred," according to the former SNP MP. The KC said she experienced a "determined attempt" to "traduce" her professional reputation after she set up Lawyers for Yes. The author referenced the concerns, writing on X: "Did pro-union people behave badly, as well as nationalists? Yes, without a doubt. In any binary contest you will look around and find a lot of people standing in your camp you don't have a single thing in common with except on a single yes/no question. "There's a reason, though, that far more nationalists than unionists look back fondly on the run up to the referendum time. "Pro-independence politicians were happy to impugn remainers' motives in very ugly ways, and plenty elected MPs and MSPs contributed enthusiastically to online toxicity." Both Scottish independence and the gender debate have become two of the most divisive debates in the country's history. Ms Rowling's self-published review has reignited questions about how movements with shared values can fracture when broader identities and loyalties clash. Much like the debate around self-ID, the constitutional question continues to stir deep emotion and division. The Scottish independence movement has never overcome that division. The challenge now for the gender critical side, is whether it can overcome the deep differences for the benefit of its greater cause - and only time will tell.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Every plan to achieve indy must be subject to the test of practicality
As an incumbent administration and being at the core of the cause for a very long time, they are fully aware of the practical limitations and constraints of the various possibilities that people promote. Therefore, their plan is already couched in terms of what is achievable. Of course there are always lots of fancy ideas of what people wish were workable, but they will not have any better chance of success than the ones that actually take account of the forces arrayed against us. READ MORE: Holyrood 2026 is the first step in regaining our political mojo This does not necessarily mean that ideas are summarily dismissed, but as with any strategy the individual steps are the most important and hence critical. All plans have to be subject to the test of practicality, and that is what the SNP have been doing for many decades and particularly since the last Labour administration. There are two critical things that complainers ignore. The first is that regardless of whichever plan is pursued – and it may require several running in parallel – they all absolutely must as a prerequisite have the support of a recognisable majority of voters, at the time of being tested, which is in the absence of a referendum based on elections. Without such a majority no plan is ever going to get off the ground, regardless of whoever's ghost is leading it. A minority appeal to the UN or EU or whoever gets nowhere other than an acknowledgement that there are some people wishing for a change. So, secondly, complainers must also bear in mind what we will end up with if they continue to undermine the SNP. Nothing but at best a Unionist Labour administration or even worse, one that is Reform/Tory. Ordinary voters will, unless they are long-term politically astute, invariably vote in accordance with their more immediate needs based around their perception of the parties on offer. So exactly what do the anti-SNP activists think they are achieving? READ MORE: A single electoral outcome could open up many routes to independence Voters will only look as far as the fact that even the so-called independence supporters cannot agree with each other, and base their choice around that. Criticism is one thing but the creation of workable plans and strategies demands working together, and if people think that arguing against the SNP is likely to make them fall in line with whichever minority shouty group is around then they are being naive. The SNP have the experience and detailed knowledge of the situation and are best placed to produce the plan. Such a plan is also tested by those arrayed against us who are in fact the only ones preventing the plans from succeeding. The progress has been stalled not by the SNP but by the Unionists who also happen to be supported, hopefully unintentionally, by those among us arguing against the SNP. And the Unionists seize on that disunity – united we stand, divided we fall. Fair enough, produce a different party to elect after we have independence, but let us achieve that goal first. Nick Cole Meigle, Perthshire I FIND myself in agreement with James Murphy, Campbell Anderson, George T Watt and Selma Rahman (Letters, Aug 16). It appears that the leadership of the SNP are unwilling to consider views other than from the coterie surrounding them. The main idea being to suppress other views and thus contain ideas on how achieve independence to those that the leadership favours. READ MORE: It's clear we need a new way of doing politics and economics No matter that this seems to be keep asking for a referendum until Westminster relents out of sheer boredom with the issue. What matter if independence is thus delayed for another decade or two. Awkward questions can be ignored and issues kicked further down the road. A quiet life had by all at the top as the independence gravy train rolls on! Frustration with current 'strategy' is rising amongst independence supporters and is likely to result in an increase in 'stay at home' by them come next May. This by default is likely to result in a better result for Unionist parties. Drew Reid Falkirk IT is with some dismay and incredulity that I am informed that a motion on a strategy to gain independence submitted by 42 SNP branches for the agenda of the SNP national conference in October has not been included in the preliminary agenda. What is on the agenda is only one motion on independence in the names of leader John Swinney and depute leader Keith Brown. Their motion has been criticised as being a flawed prospectus to gain independence. The 42 branches were to meet in Perth on August 9 to consider their motion and organise support for it. They did not expect that it would be omitted from the agenda, which was published the day before. There has been no explanation, as far as I can tell, as to why it was not included. READ MORE: Tommy Sheppard: Why a plebiscite election won't deliver Scottish independence This denial of basic party democracy, whereby a significant number of branches submit a motion for consideration by delegates that does not reach the preliminary agenda, is outrageous and should not be accepted. I am not a member of the SNP but have long been of the opinion that the arcane practices and rules relating to how the organisation is run are unacceptable. This particular situation must be resolved and it is up to the members of the SNP to do so. As said, I am not a member and some will say that I don't have the right to question their actions. It may be said that I don't have a dog in the fight, but I have, and that dog is independence. I welcomed the fact that there would be a debate with opposing views and strategies being expressed as the right way forward to gain our independence. We have to get it right. I say to the SNP leadership – get a grip. John Milligan Motherwell
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Do not enforce Palestine Action terror ban in Scotland
A motion on the provisional agenda for the conference – which will take place in Aberdeen from October 11-13 – says designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist group should 'not be implemented or enforced in Scotland'. It further calls on the SNP leadership at Holyrood and Westminster to 'work with progressive allies to oppose the proscription and support its repeal'. Keir Starmer's Government designated Palestine Action a terrorist organisation in July, leading the UN human rights chief Volker Turk to intervene and warn that Labour had put the UK 'at odds' with international law. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper speaking in the Commons (Image: PA) However, Labour have stood by the proscription, with Home Secretary Yvette Cooper claiming over the weekend that 'important details' about the decision cannot be made public due to court proceedings. In Scotland, policing of Palestine protests in the wake of the terror legislation has sparked high-level concerns about breaches of human rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The motion proposed for the SNP conference, put forward by the party's BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) network, calls on the Scottish Government to 'defend the right to protest within Scotland's jurisdiction'. It reads: 'Conference condemns the UK Government's decision to ban Palestine Action, a non-violent group protesting against the UK Government's complicity in Israeli military actions in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. READ MORE: Leaked document 'leaves Government's Palestine Action case in tatters' 'Conference also criticises the UK Government's decision to bundle Palestine Action with two unrelated extremist groups – the Murder Maniac Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement – in a single parliamentary vote, denying MPs the opportunity to assess each case on its own merits. 'In response, conference commends SNP Glasgow city councillors for defending Palestine Action's right to peaceful protest, at a constituted meeting, and further opposing Keir Starmer's attempts to criminalise direct action through misuse of terrorism legislation. 'Conference believes this attack on democratic rights is intended to deflect attention from the Israeli military's mass killing of over 60,000 Palestinian civilians.' The motion will need to be accepted for the finalised agenda and voted on by SNP delegates before becoming official party policy. However, that would not necessarily mean it will also be taken on by the SNP-run Scottish Government. Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain is head of prosecutions in Scotland (Image: (Andrew Milligan/PA)) Policing and law enforcement are devolved in Scotland. As such, although the Lord Advocate – Scotland's top legal officer – cannot change the law, she has discretion in how it is enforced. This has been demonstrated in the safe consumption space in Glasgow, set up to help people with drug addiction issues. Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain publicly said she had 'concluded that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute people for simple possession offences when they are already in a place where help with their issues can be offered'. READ MORE: Police Scotland respond as officers detain 'pro-plasticine' activist in viral video Bain leads the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), which in recent weeks has been cancelling court dates and lifting bail conditions for Scottish activists charged under terror laws following the proscription of Palestine Action. The COPFS decisions came after the Scottish Human Rights Commission warned of a risk to human rights in the way pro-Palestine protesters were being policed. On Monday, Bain said in a public reply to the commission: 'Cases involving 'Palestine Action' reported to the Procurator Fiscal will be considered by a specialist prosecutor, overseen by senior prosecutors. The prosecutor will carefully examine whether there is sufficient evidence and determine what action, if any, should be taken in the public interest.'
