A key player in the Scottish literary world has issued a warning about the impact of independence on the industry north of the border.
|Scooped by Peter A Bell|
This is dreadfully confused stuff from Hugh Andrew. He has, very evidently, set out to construct an anti-independence argument out of his grievance against the Scottish Government and dissatisfaction with a market that isn't working to his advantage. But he fails utterly to make the necessary connections.
As Alan Bissett points out - somewhat redundantly, one would have thought - the ills, real or imagined, to which Mr Andrew refers all came about under the current constitutional arrangements. Indeed, the need to counter the economic and cultural "pull" of London is among the more powerful arguments for independence.
Instead of acknowledging the fact that the state of affairs he finds so lamentable "happened on the Union’s watch", he seems - and here we must surmise as he is not at all clear on the point - to want to blame it on the independence we have not yet achieved. I'm sure this logical fallacy must have a name, but I've no idea what it is.
To say that Hugh Andrew's case for the catastrophic effects of independence is unconvincing would be a magnificent understatement. Apparently, there are some peculiarities with the Irish publishing industry and this has implications for Scotland in some way that is not explained.
He acknowledges his own failure to achieve a vibrant Scottish publishing industry in a UK open market, but cannot explain why independence would make matters worse, or even why this open market would necessarily change with independence. Nor does he explain why he would want to maintain a situation which, by his own admission, is failing his business and his industry.
Like all the scare stories oozing out of Project Fear, Hugh Andrew's little effort doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all.