I HAVE been thinking about writing a letter concerning Michael Fry’s weekly column for some time. Extremely well-written, as one might expect from a professional historian, but the content has tended to be repetitive.

He has been doggedly pursuing the linked issues of deregulation, the iniquities of egalitarianism, shrinking state provisions, and the need for never-ending increases in economic growth. What we have been subject to are paeans of praise for a neo-liberal economy and society where market forces will solve all our problems. It is a quasi-religious faith in the “hidden hand” derived from a selective and flawed reading of Adam Smith.

READ MORE: Michael Fry: A culture war is coming ... prepare for your steakhouse to be picketed

Essentially Michael has been delivering us a weekly dose of far-right economic ideology that you might expect in the Spectator or the Daily Mail.

His latest offering (A culture war is coming, September 24) did in fact venture onto new terrain, but was the final straw, or perhaps more accurately bale of odious silage, which compelled me to write this. Michael, it transpires, is a climate-change denier, just like Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro and the increasingly unhinged Nigel Lawson. I was surprised to see him repeat that favourite climate-change denier’s snappy but ignorant trope: “climate changes all the time: it’s called weather.” Trump has said that on numerous occasions, not recognising that weather is the daily or micro phenomenon, while climate encompasses the long-term recurring patterns of weather.

Laying aside the surprising rejection of research-based science in one who has always seemed to uphold the goal of rationality, there is also a sense of intolerance and scorn rippling right through Michael’s astoundingly reactionary and jaundiced article. He accuses climate campaigners and the current Scottish Government of being control freaks whose real agenda beneath a patina of environmental and social concern is a desire to control and manipulate others. For what purpose is not made clear – Machiavellian power for power’s sake appears to be the only explanation unless Michael is also a conspiracy theorist and we’re all out to get him and his neoliberal colleagues. It is very insulting to write off young activists as operating under “trendy pretexts”, thereby denying their beliefs and moral compass, insinuating that their motivation is grubby or stupid.

Furthermore, referring to Scots who want to exploit marine biology as “patriotic scientists” is equally unacceptable, even in support of the cause of independence – it reeks of exceptionalist nationalism, an accusation thrown at us by Unionists which we have to refute over and over.

As for saying that recent meat-eating has increased the size of the Japanese, this is racial stereotyping blended with anti-vegetarian prejudice. Japanese Sumo wrestlers have always been extremely large, but their central dietary component, the dish called Chankonabe, has never been required to contain meat – it’s protein content often consists of tofu or fish. His final scornful comment on environmentally responsible behaviour is truly offensive: “The planet will derive no benefit at all, but the Greens will feel righteous and taunt the rest of us for being dirty. Which is the purpose of the exercise.” Really?

Why is The National continuing to print the frothings of a curmudgeonly reactionary whose politics are well to the right of Tories like Kenneth Clark, Damian Green and, yes, even Ruth Davidson? There is vanishing little chance of Michael’s column attracting support for independence from fellow conservatives.

There is also the chance that having such Thatcherite views may put off more politically moderate No voters.

Who would want to live in Michael’s independent but harshly doctrinaire Scotland? I’m not advocating that The National should simply be an echo chamber for liberal-left views, but Michael’s vision might sit better in the Daily Express where he can appeal to fellow right-wing zealots and maybe shift a few votes over.

I actually welcome the contribution of those of differing political views appearing in The National, even those who do not support independence, including Tories. Some of them are, believe it or not, decent and reasonable people. I’d genuinely like to read a weekly column by Rory Stewart or Matthew Paris, but perhaps the best choice would be the amiable, rational, and open-to-new ideas former Scottish Conservative party head of communications, Andy McIver. That would be far more constructive than having a one-trick pony who really does live up/down to Labour’s old slur of the SNP and independence supporters being Tartan Tories.

Dr David White
Galashiels