Scotsman Letters: Unedifying example of ideological zealotry

SNP MP Joanna Cherry had been due to take part in an event at the Stand comedy club until staff objected

The Stand’s decision to cancel Joanna Cherry’s ‘In Conversation’ event, was because it did not want an audience to hear her views expressed in that conversation. Ms Slater’s refusal to recognise that as a denial of free speech shows she is ether dishonest intellectually or plain stupid, either of which should disqualify her from ministerial office.

As for Ms Dugdale, no person, at any educational level, would be unaware of the fact that Ms Cherry did not choose The Stand as a venue, but was invited by it, and cancelled by it. That Ms Dugdale sought to suggest the opposite shows a voluntary abandonment of the intellectual rigour that used to be standard among our professors.

There is no difference in principle, only in degree of application and level of punishment, of the demand for silence now made in Scotland and in Putin’s Russia and Xi Jinping’s China.

The main underpinning of democracy isn’t just the ballot and civic institutions, important as they are, but the right of an individual to be able to think freely, speak freely without fear, and be heard. That individual right is what authoritarian regimes always seek to destroy.

I hope Ms Slater and Ms Dugdale et al will reflect upon who they are partnered with.

Jim Sillars, Edinburgh

Right to protest?

Britain prides itself on being a tolerant, welcoming country, but the world’s media must have wondered why over 50 peaceful protesters were arrested for voicing their opposition to the monarchy in Trafalgar Square. Russian, Iranian and Chinese media will no doubt make huge political capital about how the way Britain treats protesters is no better than their questionable tactics.

Stringent legislation was hastily rushed through to give the police more powers to quell peaceful protest in advance of the Coronation. This is a worrying trend for a leading democracy and comes on the back of threats from the government to curb workers’ right to strike.

As for the ceremony itself, I couldn’t get out of my head Penny Mordaunt undertaking a routine of press-ups so that she could hold a sword for two hours. There was the “pledge of allegiance” to the King and his successors that our new First Minister is reported to have made despite his Republican views.

It was so out of touch in a secular, multicultural Britain struggling with the cost of living crisis. Rather than bringing people together, it seemed to do the opposite. Liverpool FC’s decision to celebrate by playing the National Anthem in front of fans was met with jeers and crowds watching large screens in Edinburgh were dwarfed by independence campaigners in Glasgow.

It seems, however, that the UK government went to great lengths to ensure nothing got in the way of the spectacle promoting Great Britain’s ancient arcane traditions, even if it meant showing intolerance to basic democratic principles for which many fought and died.

I hope the 19 million viewers across the UK realise that. As for me, I had better things to do.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

Royal image

Whatever people's view on a monarch as head of state, I believe that at least one variable stands out potentially favouring royal families. That is based on appearances, reliability and overall image.

Their present problems detract from the UK royal family's potentially calm, inspiring image of dependability. These worries could surely have been properly kept largely out of public sight. They should not, of course, have happened.

People are not perfect, even royals, but the most controversial ones should have shut up!

Comparisons with elected or appointed heads of state should be considered. Elected, non-executive, democratically-appointed presidents are rather dull people, however personally distinguished, who are usually not personally interesting, let alone inspiring.

Presidents with active political, executive responsibilities must always be very controversial, and lack the warm support of many people. There is, then, a relative vacuum at the top.

Therefore a royal family, albeit not democratically-elected, gives the best chance of our enjoying the rule of an admirable personage who can inspire us.

King George VI gave such inspiration in wartime, as did his daughter in much more peaceable circumstances. Monarchs could calm the nation in stressful times like our own. Politicians cannot do that.

To me, the other options for headship of state certainly don't appeal. We can only trust and/or pray, that our new king and his queen will be able to live up to his immediate forebears' inspirational achievements.

Charles Wardrop, Perth

University funding

The misuse of “chaos”, “catastrophe” and “tragedy” is rife throughout the Scottish media. What words are left to describe the real and terrible events in Yemen, Sudan and Ukraine if we constantly use these words for relatively minor issues?

Some of your regular, pro-union correspondents can find a catastrophe on the corner of every Scottish street but something better should be expected from the spokesperson of our Scottish universities, Dame Sally Mapstone of St Andrews (‘Universities head blasts SNP’s funds cut tragedy’, May 5).

Every sector of the economy is dealing with the consequences of Brexit, record high inflation and the general incompetence of successive UK governments. A Bank of England economist tells us all to “accept” being poorer. In this context, university principals like Dame Sally enjoy salaries of more than £300,000 with benefits and privileges on top.

The total annual income of St Andrews University alone is more than £300 million. It is just one of 15 universities in Scotland facing a share of a £20m cut. That may be difficult, but no different from the challenges faced by all public bodies, businesses and charities across the country. It is not a tragedy.

A “can-do” attitude to managing universities’ budgets would gain respect and set an example, rather than joining the hyperbolic chorus of complainers.

Robert Farquharson, Edinburgh

Darien lesson

What is it with my fellow Scots that they seem intent on not learning from history?

In 1696 Scotland sent out an expedition known as the Darien Scheme with the intention of creating a colony in the Caribbean. A ship was fitted out with various goods thought necessary to set up the colony. The problem was the goods were entirely unsuitable for the area, and unfortunately Spain didn’t look kindly on the attempt as it was in their area.

The end result sent Scotland to the edge of bankruptcy. The Scottish Parliament had to find a solution to the situation. Looking over the Border, they saw a country with both a home and overseas market that was vast and profitable.

Moves were set in place for a treaty to create a United Kingdom by merging the respective parliaments to complete the union of crowns. Unpopular with the common man, but necessary for the country’s future.

And now we have an attempt to undo that treaty, and take Scotland back to the post-Darien Scheme era. This is under the misnomer that it is independence they are seeking. Scotland was not subjugated by England, it is a partnership under the Treaty of two Parliaments.

So it is the negation of a treaty that is being sought, not independence. Would it not be better to put that negation on the back-burner, use the energy and money being spent on it and build a prosperous Scotland. Cannot we have a group of politicians more intent on Scotland’s well being than following a personal vendetta.

C. Lowson, Fareham, Hants

Judicial changes

It seems the proposed changes to our judicial system in Scotland, driven by the SNP, are in trouble and lawyers and others are apparently up in arms.

Putting aside the worth of the proposed changes – and personally I have always felt a little unease about the alone-in-the-western-world not proven verdict – we are once again experiencing an ill-prepared, not-thought-through project. Like so many others. Does anyone in the SNP ever take in-depth soundings and due diligence before proposing major changes? That is the norm for most administrations.

Or do they, as I suspect, merely issue directives from above as is done in banana republics or dictatorships? And expect immediate acceptance?

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Wind farms waste

Neil Bryce is right to mention how wind farm community grants are squandered on various unnecessary projects (Letters, May 6). The money allocated would be best divided up as grants towards the cost of electricity for householders in the affected areas.

Here in upper Lauderdale a proposed wind farm on Ditcher Law towering 200m over the surrounding countryside is likely to join the others in Toddleburn and Dun Law, much to the disfigurement of the land, and making house sales of properties near them problematical. That is of no consequence to most people, including decision-makers who live in cities, but it does matter to country folk.

In the medium term, wind farms are likely to be superseded by new technology – let's face it, wind power is a medieval one.

How on earth will the millions of tons of concrete for the foundations of the towers be removed? A single tower will have something like 2,500 tons of concrete poured into the ground to support it. Will that be left for posterity?

William Loneskie, Lauder

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.

Subscribe at www.scotsman.com/subscriptions

Scotsman Letters: Unedifying example of ideological zealotry

Comments