Scotland
in the
heat
The
death
of depth
Chris Holligan
says that deep reading
is becoming a thing of
the past. We’ve all
gone shopping
Get SR free in
your inbox three
times a week
Click here
The care system
forgets the people
within us
Victoria Law, a delegate at the Young Scotland Programme, writes for SR
Click here
Lockerbie
An overview by Morag Kerr of the Justice for Megrahi Committee
Click here
The Cafe
The Cafe is our readers’ forum. Send your contribution to islay@scottishreview.net
Today’s banner
Within a few hundred yards of Commonwealth House, Glasgow
Photograph by
Islay McLeod
Kenneth Roy’s
mean-spirited attack
on generous Mr Gilbert
As one of the ‘drooling’ hacks who was at Edinburgh Castle for the Scottish Open sponsorship announcement, please allow me the opportunity to introduce some perspective to Kenneth Roy’s jaundiced, and occasionally disingenuous, observations.
Scottish Review readers can sleep easily without fretting that Glasgow’s gangland is making involuntary contributions to the financial welfare of Phil Mickelson, Luke Donald or any of the other gifted golfers on show at Castle Stuart last July.
These two names alone should give lie to Mr Roy’s assertion that the Scottish Open ‘is often undistinguished’. Despite his disparaging remarks it attracts one of the strongest fields on the European Tour and has done so for many years: Kenneth might not regret its demise, but golf fans, of whom there are very many in Scotland, most certainly would.
When the Scottish Open moved from Loch Lomond to Castle Stuart, its arrival was a source of enormous pride to people not just in the Inverness area, but throughout the Highlands. In an area starved of top-class sporting events, the opportunity to watch the Mickelsons and Donalds of this world is eagerly anticipated.
Do Highlanders not have a right to benefit from the proceeds of crime? And why is it not legitimate for the Scottish government to push money towards supporting a golf tournament which – despite Mr Roy’s protestations to the contrary – has a massive worldwide television reach, especially in the United States? Quite apart from the benefits to the local economy which he is so eager to trivialise, are not the images likely to encourage overseas visitors to Scotland?
This, I would imagine, is why the cashback money is going towards the tournament. The actual prize money for the players will come from the European Tour and the new sponsors, Aberdeen Asset Management.
I didn’t consider it pertinent to chastise Martin Gilbert for an event which happened some 10 years ago – and not least because I was blissfully unware of it until Mr Roy decided to vent his spleen. What I do know is that Mr Gilbert and Aberdeen Asset Management are generous backers of Scottish sport at many levels; that is something, regardless of my trade, I would tend to appreciate rather than deplore.
Where I do agree with Mr Roy is in having sympathy for projects like Theatre Nemo, which deserve more support. However, as he often writes ruefully about a grim, grey Scotland, I would respectfully suggest he is missing the target by attempting to trash an event which brings a much-needed splash of colour and sporting excellence to these shores.
Alan Campbell
Kenneth Roy replies: Which of the two supporters of this commercial event – Aberdeen Asset Management and the Scottish Government – actually writes out the cheques to these rich young men is beside the point; they are both in it together. I am surprised that Alan Campbell does not remember the financial scandal which engulfed Aberdeen Asset Management a mere 10 years ago, but he may care to reflect on the fact that, only last year, a third of the company’s investors rebelled against Mr Gilbert’s £800,000 a year increase. Frankly, I don’t blame them.
Morag McCracken (4 April) makes some excellent points in her discussion on the issue of maintaining free higher education in Scotland, not the least of which is the simple, yet undeniably important fact that the vote in 1997 to establish a Scottish parliament clearly indicated that voters in Scotland strongly supported the idea of a distinct legislature in Scotland, making decisions for Scotland (within the devolved areas of course).
In the best of human traditions, I probably find myself agreeing with her because I myself consider the higher education fee-free policy ‘genius’ for a number of social reasons, although commercial considerations did not previously form part of my own thinking on the subject.
However, I would challenge some of the statements that she does make on the grounds of accuracy. Primary among them is the core of the piece and of her opening gambit; as any discrimination that takes place has more to do with residency than with nationality. Simply put, higher education in Scotland is not free to Scottish people – it is free to Scottish domiciled individuals. Individuals who do attend higher education establishments in Scotland, and have their fees paid for by the Scottish Funding Council, can be (and are) of many origins, nationalities and citizenships, including English, Welsh and Northern Irish. Likewise, there are many Scots who attend Scottish universities and pay fees due to their domicile being outwith Scotland. Perhaps these individuals feel even more aggrieved than their fellow non-Scottish, non-Scotland residents. Making this issue a straight discussion of Scots-v-non-Scots simply plays into the hands of those who would paint the wider picture in petty tones.
The (re)election of the SNP in 2011 was not by a ‘landslide majority’ as Ms McCracken asserts. As SR has itself pointed out on several occasions, less than 50% of those voting voted for the current SNP administration, and most telling of all, only 50% of possible voters bothered going to the polls in the first place. This is one of the reasons I would keep higher education in Scotland free, and widen that education as much as possible in more ways than one. When only 50% of Scottish voters can be bothered to partake in the selection of their parliament, Scotland clearly needs to be doing a better job of educating its populace about their civic and social duties – at all levels.
My comments aside, I would also highlight the strengths of Ms McCracken’s piece. Her position that those who remain in Scotland after completing their higher education (irrespective of their personal origins) will benefit Scotland is true in more than simply commercial and economic ways. Her paper is proof of such.
Murray Leith
I much enjoyed Tessa Ransford’s essay on Hamish Henderson (18 April). Hamish’s legacy is indeed alive on the web. You can listen to hundreds of his recordings on the excellent Tobar an Dulchais site here: http://www.tobarandualchais.co.uk
Chris Holme
Book a table in The Cafe. Email islay@scottishreview.net
website design by Big Blue Dogwebsite development by NSD Web