Scotland

Thursday March 30, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday March 30, 2017

Scotland to press on with referendum

Nicola Sturgeon has pledged to press on with a fresh independence referendum after dismissing Theresa May’s promise of substantial new powers for Scotland Brexit.

June 25, 2016

The first minister said May’s decision to trigger article 50 on Wednesday, beginning the UK’s divorce from the EU, was one of the most destructive acts by a British leader in modern history, threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK.

Writing for the Guardian, Sturgeon said the decision was dispiriting, economically foolhardy and constitutionally reckless, threatening stability in Northern Ireland. It also undermined European efforts to combat climate change and collective security, she said.

“Brexit – especially the hard Brexit shaped by May’s inability to shake off the agenda of the Ukip-tinged right wing of her own party – threatens to be an act of self-harm on a scale barely understood,” she said.

She accused May of paying only superficial attention to the Scottish government’s demands for a special deal on the single market, opening up further conflicts with the UK government over the benefits Scotland could gain from Brexit.

“The result is that we must now ensure that people in Scotland are given a choice between the hard Brexit deal now being negotiated, and independence,” she said.

Just as the prime minister told MPs at Westminster she had formally triggered article 50, Sturgeon had received a letter from David Davis, the UK Brexit secretary, insisting his government was engaging seriously with Sturgeon’s proposals.

Neither government would release Davis’s letter but it is understood that he told Sturgeon he was disappointed that she had launched her claim for an independence referendum before she saw the full extent of the new powers on offer once EU laws and regulations were repatriated. (Source: The Guardian) 

 

Friday March 3, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator  – Friday March 3, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday March 3, 2017

Subway defends its chicken after CBC Marketplace report

Subway stands behind its chicken.

The sandwich chain is disputing the findings of a CBC Marketplace investigation into fast food chicken. While most of the samples were found to contain close to 100 per cent chicken DNA, Subway sandwiches contained substantially less than the other chains. Tests showed an average of 53.6 per cent chicken DNA for the oven-roasted chicken and 42.8 per cent for the chicken strips.

The story has garnered worldwide attention, and raised questions about how much chicken should be in a chicken sandwich.

Subway says the report was “absolutely false and misleading,” and demanded it be retracted. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that the chain says its sandwiches contain 100 per cent white meat with seasonings, although the ingredient list it provided to CBC News lists soy protein as a component of the company’s chicken.

Marketplace stands by its report and is releasing the Subway test results as well as additional detail about the methodology and investigation. (Continued: CBC News) 

 

Editorial Cartooning 101

Post by The Hamilton Spectator.

 

Refresher on Editorial Cartooning 101

Last week I drew a cartoon in advance of the day the world was to find out the results of the referendum on Scottish independence. Of course, no one knew how the final numbers would turn out, but the pollsters said it was to be close. The choice for me therefore was to draw something that would work with either a yes or no victory. There was an overwhelmingly negative reaction to the cartoon, as one can tell from this particular forum for outrage, yet with all the thumbs down communicated to me through social media, I’m still not clear why this cartoon is so repulsive to so many.

Independence movements come in many forms. The ones I depicted of cheery folk in traditional garb are looked mostly upon as romanticized rebels who’ve sought their aims mostly through democratic or civil disobedience means. Many of the causes the cute characters represent have compatriots who’ve used the violent tactics to make their points known, in the form of letter bombs, kidnapping, and assassinations, as well as other means not much different from the kind ISIS uses this day to achieve their so called ‘Caliphate’.

Despite my given name I’ve never been supportive of Scottish Independence for my ancestral homeland, and I’ve always believed Quebec should always belong to my native Canada. I’m repulsed by the notion of ultra nationalism and, if anything, I hoped my cartoon would have conveyed caution to those blinded by jingoism and radicalism.

I assume, I guess, that some reacted rather negatively to this cartoon because they expected a bit of giggle at the end. Yes, cartoons often end that way and my cartoons are better known for using humorous satire as opposed to shock.

Perhaps readers didn’t appreciate having their emotions jostled by a cartoon?

Did some anticipating a yes victory wake up to the reality of a no vote only to find a cartoon referencing Scottish independence with the lunacy of statehood sought by ISIS?

Did readers think the now familiar image of an ISIS terrorist about to commit murder was terrible gag using a poor word play on ‘separation’.

I don’t expect people to always agree with my cartoons, or for anyone’s cartoon for that matter. However, I do wish people would have a better understanding of what we editorial cartoonists do and what the point of an editorial cartoon is. I wish people would take more than 6.5 seconds to actually view and process the images we draw before leaping to conclusions.  Editorial cartoons are often funny, but they can also be quite pointed by provoking thought, anger or even sadness with its audiences.

Given how several demanded the cartoon be removed from the Spec.com, and the odd one, rather ironically, wanted editors to metaphorically lob my head off as a punishment for this cartoon, I wonder how conscious some readers are of rights to expression we apparently enjoy in our free world.

Friday September 19, 2014

Friday September 19, 2014By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday September 19, 2014

European Integration Emboldens Europe’s Separatists

Scotland’s referendum has galvanized national movements across Europe. The irony is that this has been made possible in part by the European Union, for decades the driver of economic and political integration across a once war-torn continent.

In the past week, Edinburgh has been like a magnet for politicians across Europe who regard their regions as nations. Representatives from Wales, the Basque Country, Flanders, Catalonia, Galicia, Corsica, Sardinia and Friesland visited the Scottish capital.

They have been emboldened in part by the safety net that the EU is perceived to offer to small countries. The institution that was created to make national borders irrelevant may perversely play a role in creating new ones.

Even as voters in many European countries register growing dissatisfaction with the EU, membership offers smaller nationalities the hope of separation with a minimum of disruption.

Today, “separatism has a spring in its step,” says Charles Grant, director of the London-based Centre for European Reform.

Europe’s borders have already fractured in the last 20 years. With the exception of Czechoslovakia, which split in 1993, these changes have been born out of the violent breakup of the former Yugoslavia.

What is seducing nationalists these days is what Michael Desch, professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, calls the prospect of Velvet Divorce: a gentle segue into an independent state while preserving membership of institutions like the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and retaining the same currency.

But governments across the continent have viewed developments in the U.K. with growing alarm, as support for Scottish independence appeared to strengthen. Europe’s other capitals, surprised that London has appeared to sleepwalk into a potential constitutional crisis, are unlikely to succumb meekly to the phenomenon.

Their reaction, should Scotland become independent, will be instructive. Scottish Nationalists have portrayed Scottish membership of the EU as a foregone conclusion, suggesting it would be waved into the bloc with little fuss. (Source: Wall Street Journal)

LETTERS to the EDITOR

In my lifelong reading of The Spectator, I’ve never been shocked by a cartoon until now. The editorial cartoon of Friday, Sept. 19 was funny to a point. That point was the last cell of the multi-celled cartoon. The real life events upon which it was based are horrible. The Spectator doesn’t need to embed these events, even more, into the Zeitgeist by depicting them as the punch line of a cartoon. It was insensitive, tasteless and thoughtless. You went too far. — B. Kish, Hamilton

Insensitive cartoon disappointing – September 22, 2014: Sorry, Graeme MacKay. I’m really disappointed but that was as insensitive as anything you’ve ever done. I only hope and pray that no family members of these victims ever lay eyes on it. — Virginia Coombs, Stoney Creek

Untimely and tasteless trash – September 23, 2014: I was beginning to think cartoonist Graeme MacKay’s work was showing some maturity. After a brief break, some of his concepts were starting to display some intelligence. However, we seem to be back to stuff that portrays the lack of sensitivity and taste that have been his mark in the past. The cartoon Scotland’s Influence Endures is pathetic and the portrayal of an ISIS executioner with a knife at the throat of a prisoner, especially now when people are totally sickened by what has happened to these poor victims, is obscene. It is hard to believe that The Spectator would publish such untimely and tasteless trash. — Roy Coombs, Simcoe

Scottish cartoon went too far with ISIS – September 24, 2014: I am totally disgusted by the editorial cartoon that appeared in The Spectator on Sept. 19. I cannot stomach anything that would include Scotland and ISIS in the same reference. Is this supposed to be funny or witty? What part of a drawing showing someone being beheaded is in keeping with decency? In this case, cartoonist Graeme MacKay has offended many. It is indefensible that your paper can continue to publish his work. — David McIntyre, Hamilton

SOCIAL MEDIA

Post by The Hamilton Spectator.

 

Commentary by Graeme MacKay

Last week the above cartoon in advance of the day the world was to find out the results of the referendum on Scottish independence. Of course, no one knew how the final numbers would turn out, but the pollsters said it was to be close. The choice for me therefore was to draw something that would work with either a yes or no victory. There was an overwhelmingly negative reaction to the cartoon (see above), yet with all the thumbs down communicated to me through social media, I’m still not clear why this cartoon is so repulsive to so many… continued

Tuesday September 9, 2014

Tuesday September 9, 2014Tuesday September 9, 2014

Scotland – Vote No and get something better?

On the morning after the poll before, “Vote No and get something better” summed up George Osborne’s message. It’s a tried and trusted message which worked in the independence referendum in Quebec when a last minute poll lead for Yes was transformed into a narrow No. It is, though, a message with a difficult history in Scotland.

Angus MacScotland stickerThirty five years ago it was precisely what Scots were told when they were voting in a referendum on a much more modest proposal – to create a Scottish Parliament with some devolved powers.
A former prime minister, a Scot and, as it happens, a Tory, Sir Alec Douglas Home urged his countrymen to vote No and get “something better”. The referendum rejected devolution and what they got soon afterwards was 18 years of Margaret Thatcher’s government and no devolution at all (until, that is, Labour were re-elected in 1997).

That is just one reason why Osborne’s promise of a plan to transfer new powers to Holyrood – covering tax raising, spending and benefits – caused such confusion yesterday. It is why Alex Salmond felt able to attack it as a sign of “panic” on the No side.

The other reason is that the three rival Westminster parties – the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats – have not agreed a plan for which precise powers to devolve. Each party has published its own set of proposals which overlap in the areas Osborne listed.

The plan he was talking about – but which is still being argued about behind the scenes – is to give Scottish voters certainty that this time – unlike last time – they are guaranteed to get “something better” whoever forms the next government in Westminster.

The Lib Dem Scottish secretary Alastair Carmichael has long talked about the idea of setting up a Scottish Constitutional Convention bringing together representatives of all parties – including the SNP – and none (trade unionists, business groups, the churches etc). This would hammer out a new settlement which all the Westminster parties would then promise to implement whoever is elected in the 2015 general election.

Who should announce this, where and how poses its own problems since Scottish voters – like voters right across the world – are deeply mistrustful of what politicians say. If all three party leaders stood together it would simply allow Alex Salmond to say “I told you they were all the same and that Labour were in bed with the Tories.”

A striking finding of this weekend’s YouGov poll is that the leader of the Labour Party – for so long the natural party of government in Scotland – is trusted by under a quarter of Scottish voters, the same number as it happens as trust David Cameron. (Continued: BBC News)