THE Scottish Government is so very wrong when it states that the current stramash over the use of Holyrood Park or the disgraceful turn back of the 500 mile marchers at Stirling Castle are solely matters for Historic Environment Scotland (HES).
While it is correct that the body can and should be apolitical, it is clearly acting without appropriate guidance as it makes its own very decidedly political decisions.
The question we need to answer for our quangos is how to define political, and the issue seems to be that in setting up this or perhaps any quango, nobody has yet sought to define it, simply leaving it up the individuals in charge of a specific quango or location. That’s clearly wrong, as the definition and perspective can and will change as fresh blood enters each organisation’s leadership positions.
READ MORE: Historic Environment Scotland challenged over Declaration of Arbroath anniversary plans
Imagine a rally in America, Canada, France or Germany taking place in a public space, a rally purporting to support, advance and celebrate the nation. Imagine, for example, the head of the US Park Service refusing such. It’s fairly safe to say that individual would quickly be required to fall on their sword.
The issue here is that someone at the head of HES sees this as political, rather than a celebration of nationhood. The only way these individuals can see this as political is if they don’t believe Scotland is a nation.
Holyrood needs to set forth guidelines, or preferably statute, to ensure this never happens again. To not do so would be derelict in its duty.
If a registered political organisation (party) requests such use, by all means deny it, however parliament should make clear that spontaneous grassroots organisations, especially those disavowing political allegiance, should not be considered political organisations. Then our lawmakers could state that these are public areas, at least for green spaces or parking areas, permitting gatherings at any time, for any non-political group up to a certain percentage of the property’s capacity.
READ MORE: Historic Environment Scotland respond to questions over Arbroath anniversary
If Holyrood ignores its obligation in this, the only guarantee we’ll have are future messes as it is left up to each quango to do its own thing. One of them might decide that the century-old issue of women’s suffrage was “political” and remove all reference from a museum or teaching institution. Ridiculous, possibly, but AUOB is simply the thinnest part of a very nasty wedge, and the question must be: if not stopped now, where might it end?
Holyrood, through its own lack of foresight, really can’t intervene in this one. What it can do is to put itself in a position where it will not be caught out in future. Get it done. After all, who wants to volunteer to catch the next hot potato?
Ashley MacGregor
East Kilbride
WHO on earth is Historic Environment Scotland, or more precisely, who is hiding under the cover of that name, while claiming historic sites in Scotland to be “our sites” and pretending to have the authority to examine the validity of any group of peoples’ philosophic idea before they can decide if they can get access to “their” properties?
This is utter nonsense. The Scottish people are sovereign, all Scottish historical sites are their property, such sites belong to no other body. These properties are currently under the care of the elected Scottish Government, which must deal with this immediately. The people claiming ownership of these sites should be told in no uncertain terms that they have no such claim, and that they have no authority to decide what the philosophic views of visitors to these sites are.
If there is any hesitancy from these people about this at all, they should be dismissed as unsuitable for the job.
Andy Anderson
Saltcoats
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel