Hand-cuffed to a Maniac – Marking Instructions www.misterconnor.org

List of metaphors (“on the threshold, on the edge, on the limit”) (1) How does the writer’s use of sentence structure convey his sense of uncertainty regarding Brexit? (2) List of metaphors (“on the threshold, on the edge, on the limit”) (1) Each phrase suggests that the writer does not know what is coming next, and by using three in a row, he heightens his sense of uncertainty. (1)

Summarise the main points in the second paragraph. (4) The U.K. is walking away from a recent history of cooperation. (1) Many laws we currently use will be re-written. (1) The writer believes the replacement laws will be inferior. (1) Consequently, he feels that life after Brexit will be worse. (1)

How does the phrase “or perhaps not” act as a link between paragraphs two and four? (4) This is an absolute STINKER of a question. “Or” suggests a turn in the argument. (1) Writer will move away from the cataclysmic view of the first paragraphs. (1) “Perhaps not” suggests he will talk about something less negative. (1) As he does when he talks about Scotland’s view of Brexit. (1)

“constructing an escape pod” How does the writer make use of imagery to show the difference of opinion between Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon. (2) “constructing an escape pod” Just as an escape pod is a way to remove oneself from danger, so Sturgeon believes she can remove Scotland from the threat of Brexit. (1) “wielding the scalpel” Just as a surgeon “wield(s) the scalpel”, so May is surgically separating the U.K. from the E.U. (1)

How does the writer make effective use of sentence structure to convey his attitude? (2) In the first two sentences he shows how few Scottish M.P.s are Conservative. (1) He uses a conjunction at the start of the third sentence to express his attitude of outrage. “And yet a Conservative government is forcing Scotland to leave the E.U.” (1)

What is a “quirk”? (1) A peculiarity, strange thing, unusual behaviour. (1)

Identify how the writer constructs a sarcastic tone in this paragraph He uses parenthesis to add a personal comment, “here’s a surprise”. (1) The comment is not surprising because of everything he has said already. (1) His use of questions forces the reader to consider other similar situations where many voters have lost. (1) “How do you think Conservative voters in Labour constituencies have felt for the last couple of decades? How do you think Green voters feel at the end of every election?”

How does the sentence structure show that not winning is part of democracy? (2)

How are we able to infer the meaning of “farrago” from its context. (2)

How does the writer make use of imagery to express the impotence of those who voted to remain. (2)

Five is not a number naturally suited to close reading. Identify three areas on which they disagree. You should support the points by referring to important ideas in both passages. (5) Five is not a number naturally suited to close reading. We are used to giving evidence and then explaining. Two or four marks seems more obvious. In this case, six would be clearer. And for our purposes, you should interpret five as six.

So, SQA, why five? 5 identification of essential areas of disagreement, with an intelligent use of supporting evidence 4 identification of essential areas of disagreement, with sound use of supporting evidence 3 identification of essential areas of disagreement, with some supporting evidence 2 identification of only two essential areas of disagreement or identification of more than two without supporting evidence 1 identification of just one essential area of disagreement 0 failure to identify any essential area of disagreement and/or complete misunderstanding of the task

Like… what? This is not a straightforward calculation. You will get up to three marks for identifying areas of disagreement. The final two marks come from how well you have used evidence to support these three areas.

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght… Simply.

Three marks The first writer believes that the rules we get/got from the EU are helpful. The second writer thinks they are a nuisance. (1) The first writer thinks leaving the EU is a catastrophe. The second writer thinks it is a great opportunity. (1) The first writer thinks that Scotland’s fate may be different to England’s. The second writer doesn’t address the issue of Scotland at all. (1)

Okay. So, from three areas of disagreement, we get three marks. For the final two, we need to support these points with some evidence.

Four marks. The first writer believes that the rules we get/got from the EU are helpful. The second writer thinks they are a nuisance. (1) The first writer lists all the positive laws which the EU has given us, saying, “workers’ rights, human rights, protections against corruption and guarantees for the safety of our citizens”, whereas the second writer reduces all this to a dismissive, “red tape”. (1) The first writer thinks leaving the EU is a catastrophe. The second writer thinks it is a great opportunity. (1) The first writer thinks that Scotland’s fate may be different to England’s. The second writer doesn’t address the issue of Scotland at all. (1)

Five marks. The first writer believes that the rules we get/got from the EU are helpful. The second writer thinks they are a nuisance. (1) The first writer lists all the positive laws which the EU has given us, saying, “workers’ rights, human rights, protections against corruption and guarantees for the safety of our citizens”, whereas the second writer reduces all this to a dismissive, “red tape”. (1) The first writer thinks leaving the EU is a catastrophe. The second writer thinks it is a great opportunity. (1) Just as being “handcuffed to a maniac” would lead to unpredictable, and mostly bad consequences, so leaving the EU, the writer believes, would be disastrous. The second writer uses the anaphora of “we can… we can… we will” to show all the positive changes that could come about as a result of leaving the EU. (1) The first writer thinks that Scotland’s fate may be different to England’s. The second writer doesn’t address the issue of Scotland at all. (1)

Overwriting? The first writer believes that the rules we get/got from the EU are helpful. The second writer thinks they are a nuisance. (1) The first writer lists all the positive laws which the EU has given us, saying, “workers’ rights, human rights, protections against corruption and guarantees for the safety of our citizens”, whereas the second writer reduces all this to a dismissive, “red tape”. (1) The first writer thinks leaving the EU is a catastrophe. The second writer thinks it is a great opportunity. (1) Just as being “handcuffed to a maniac” would lead to unpredictable, and mostly bad consequences, so leaving the EU, the writer believes, would be disastrous. The second writer uses the anaphora of “we can… we can… we will” to show all the positive changes that could come about as a result of leaving the EU. (1) The first writer thinks that Scotland’s fate may be different to England’s. The second writer doesn’t address the issue of Scotland at all. (1) The first writer talks about Nicola Sturgeon creating an “escape pod”, using the metaphor to suggest that Scotland might be saved from the consequences of Brexit. (1)

In short… Show three areas of agreement/ disagreement. Support each with evidence. Do this three times to give yourself the best chance of full marks.