For a list of the current Friends of the Scottish Review, click here
Today’s banner:
Harvest scene, Sutherland, last weekend
by Islay McLeod
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
For once I disagree with Kenneth Roy. I have always regarded Stewart Sutherland as one of Scotland’s more admirable public figures. Whatever commission or inquiry he has participated in, yes indeed he has offered (unironically) ‘sage advice’ and even made (equally unironically) ‘wise and scholarly pronouncements’.
Lord Sutherland’s academic career in philosophy and religious studies, and as a senior university administrator, has also been a very successful one. If he has been asked to serve on a large number of public bodies, it is because he has shown the virtues necessary to succeed in such activities: objectivity, integrity, honest endeavour. One may disagree with some of his more recent observations – as Kenneth does. But that is not a reason to undermine such a major achievement as his role in establishing the free care for the elderly programme which the Scottish Government at least has put in place.
However, as far as the wording on the independence ballot paper which Lord Sutherland and his two colleagues have come up with is concerned, I guess I’m on Kenneth’s side. The suggested ‘Scotland should become an independent state: I agree/I do not agree’ is indeed surprisingly close to the first minister’s preference: ‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?’. I doubt whether many voters will appreciate the fine distinction between the terms ‘state’ and ‘country’.
On the other hand, whether the Sutherland version is music in SNP ears to the extent that it represents ‘a piped version of Flower of Scotland in every polling booth’ is perhaps a more open question. Ordinary voters invited by BBC Scotland to comment on the wording of the ballot question were unanimous in insisting it didn’t matter. They knew which way they would vote and how the question was asked would make no difference. Is this whole issue anything more than music in a teacup?
Andrew Hook
An Audience with History was one of the offerings at the Festival of Politics in the parliament. The Great Tapestry of Scotland project was to have a panel discussion about ‘which historical figures should be included in the Great Tapestry of Scotland’s Parliament of our Ancestors panel?’.
Presiding officer, Tricia Marwick, chaired a panel consisting of the novelist Alexander McCall Smith (who came up with the idea in the first place), the historians Alistair Moffat and Tom Devine, and the Herald literary editor and author Rosemary Goring.
Moffat started in the misty past – enter Calgacus. Devine commenced in the 18th century – hello Mr Hume. Goring got the short straw, a list of the living (not a very good idea). The audience sat through all the suggestions demurely until one particular name was announced: ‘Andrew Neil’. There was an instant growling girn accompanied by a large number of negative interjections.
Later, as the audience participated, a certain Mr Linklater evinced that if a particular name made it through to the final creation he would personally remove it with a pair of scissors. Cue loud applause!
Stewart Wright
Alasdair McKillop (11 September) asserts that, under the union, Scotland had immunological protection from sectarianism but that since the birth of devolution, Labour and the SNP have exhibited an approach that may lead to a flood of trouble that will ‘pour forth’ due to their inability to understand the ‘dirty complexities’ inherent in the matter. By not offering any evidence, I am left to interpret his approach as being threatening.
If we do not maintain a union, trouble will come. Yet the one certainty of the issue is that the ‘dirty complexity’ came from the blurring of roles throughout the troubles with both the Republican and imperial sides indulging in multiple roles of community protectors and antagonistic terrorists. I would offer this following simple deduction – the troubles were about an abusive democratic deficit seared into the community consciousness of both sides – one that painfully lost hegemony and the other that never achieved equality.
Paul Cochrane
The Cafe is our readers’ forum. Send your contribution to islay@scottishreview.net
