AS a republican socialist from the opposite end of the broad independence political spectrum, I try to avoid criticising Michael Fry’s right-wing views each week. I do recognise his right to hold such views and am glad of it, whilst seeing nothing to criticise in his aptly titled Tuesday column, “Why now is the perfect time for a reboot of the way Scotland looks after its heritage”.
I think it is also time the nation was better informed on the background of the National Trust for Scotland. The Duke of Buccleuch, Scotland’s largest private landlord, is a former president. Their appointment of right-wing Unionist poster boy Kneel Oliver was hardly an act of “apolitical” assurance. He was allowed to hold outrageous public anti-independence meetings and to broadcast the same whilst being a representative of the Trust. We are all allowed to have our political views, but pretending to be “apolitical” is adding insult to injury.
READ MORE: Michael Fry: Why Scotland must reconsider how it looks after its heritage
Michael reminds us of the declining membership and distrust of the Trust in Scotland. At one time it was common for SNP members to have family memberships of the NTS, till gradually they began to notice the Unionist interpretation of past events and came up against opposition and hostility to their rallies and gatherings at Scotland’s places of historical interest.
The SNP and the older nationalist movement have been gathering at these sites long before the NTS was formed in 1931. I remember marching to Bannockburn when it was a pile of stones in a field. Huge rallies were carried out there annually by diverse interests, such as miners, republican Chartists, who funded the Wallace Monument at Abbey Craig, and even republican Covenanters. Agree, or disagree, no-one should question their right to march and freely assemble. The miners and Chartists had to fight for this right, as did the Covenanters in their war against the Anglicans attempt to impose bishops on their assemblies in the Bishops’ War. John MacLean, the revolutionary Earl of Mar, Jimmy Maxton and other Republicans held annual rallies at Arbroath. The Presbyterians held their armed conventicles in the moors and hills.
Thanks to Labour’s Public Order Act ending the spontaneous right of free assembly, the Tories and Unionist coalition councils and individual petty bureaucrats were able to add their own restrictions and interpretations. 28 days’ notice to local councils and police became compulsory. The first Act was introduced by Labour against the rise of fascism. In effect, it was mainly used against socialists, anarchists, peaceniks and anti-imperialist nationalists by the Labour government of the British unionist movement.
The SNP gave up the traditional annual Bannockburn rally, which was held on the nearest Saturday to June 24, the summer solstice and anniversary of one of the most important battles in the Wars of Scottish Independence. The reason given at the time, by Kenny MacAskill, was that rallies were for protests and the SNP was now the party of government. The cross-party Scottish Republican Movement decided to keep the continuity by applying each year for the rally, till the SNP decided to take it back.
What better time than now? ‘Mon Nicola. The SRSM also worked with AUOB to enhance the turnout. Our initial meeting with the NTS was met with undisguised hostility. They regarded the site as their private property. At first, they tried to refuse entry to the grounds. When finally forced to accept our right to march they insisted on an 11am start, which was inhibitive to a turn-out from all the airts and pairts of Scotland.
Michael Fry is right in demanding a better approach to our national heritage. Might I suggest a quango of locals, academic institutions and the Scottish Government?
Donald Anderson
Glasgow
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