THE ceremony around a commemorative paving stone for a winner of the Victoria Cross is, in my view, the latest in a long line of invidious initiatives that amount to a gradual creeping militarisation of civil society (Soldier remembered, July 21).
Others include the rebranding of Veterans’ Day as Armed Forces Day (better to show off the arms industry’s “toys” at public expense , and the now “normal” homecoming parades from our auxiliary missions in other, now never ending, expeditionary wars.
Please note I am no pacifist. It’s a viewpoint that, in my view, occasionally limits the effectiveness the wider peace movement when it reaches out to ordinary men and women in the street.
As someone who is no pacifist I accept the need to allow space for a distinct military culture not only to exist but to develop, though again the military and their political dupes are at it when the excuse of “cyber threats” is used to appropriate a range of operational security issues that properly lie with specialist policing.
The initiative to celebrate the achievements of every Victoria Cross winner with a commemorative paving stone in their communities, first thought up by then Conservative local government minister Eric Pickles as part of the World War One Centenary celebrations, is particularly invidious.
Sadly, though not surprisingly, local governments throughout the UK and devolved governments lacked the intellectual wit to oppose the initiative.
It is in my view an insult to those who, whether volunteers or conscripts, submitted to the strictures of military discipline and died or were maimed often in mind as well as body.
It is an insult because it places the Victoria Cross winners awarded, perfectly properly and perfectly understandably awarded for military prowess, above those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.
It should be remembered that many Victoria Cross winners, thankfully, lived into a ripe old age and a few actually were given the award more than once.
Bill Ramsay
WITH the UK Government in complete disarray, the Labour Party still in turmoil, while the Lib Dems – as is their habit – await which way the political wind is blowing before they decide which way to bend, it will be instructive to recall the joint statement, made at the 2014 referendum, by the leaders of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties from Calton Hill, Edinburgh.
Their joint statement echoed the reference in the draft Scottish written constitution of an independent Scotland, to popular sovereignty.
Their joint statement’s opening line was: “Power lies with the Scottish people and we believe it is for the Scottish people to decide how we are to be governed”.
The corollary is irrefutable that it is equally their responsibility and right to determine how they are not to be governed. Since 2007 the Scottish people’s decision has been made abundantly clear – that a Unionist Tory or Labour Government in Westminster is rejected. Regrettably, Scotland is presently unable to wield the power inherent in the Calton Hill statement, but the time is overdue for that unhappy situation to be rectified. It is equally an irrefutable corollary that “ for the Scottish people to decide”, a plebiscite will be unavoidable.
Westminster is no longer fit for purpose. Scotland can do better and it will.
J Hamilton
Bearsden
THE knee-jerk response to any concern raised by the Scottish Government regarding shortcomings in Westminster policies is to dismiss it as “grievance politics” or “manufactured grievance”.
Employed daily (along with the ubiquitous “day job”), the claim has become the default position of Unionist-leaning commentators in the absence of any legitimate counter-argument to criticism. After all, grievance is surely an unreasonable stance for an “equal partner in this precious union of equals”?
But then, Mundell let slip the awful truth: “You’re not a partner in the UK – you’re a part of the UK !”
So, what grounds are there for genuine grievances?
To list one or two that have grabbed headlines: Oil Grab, Sea Grab, Land Grab, Money Grab (2008), Pension Grab (Brown), Waspi Grab, Farm Subsidy Grab, Crown Estate Grab, Benefits Grab, Fisheries Grab, a Loch Grab (for parking WMD at a safe distance from London). Scotland’s always up for grabs.
Maybe it’s time for whingeing Scots subsidy junkies to ditch the grievance and accept that life is a compromise – give and take: We give, they take. Otherwise Westminster would have to learn to stand on its own feet.
James Stevenson
Auchterarder
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here