We truly live in the age of celebrity. Mike Myers, the voice of cartoon character Shrek, has been asked how he might vote in the independence referendum.
A bit of fun, but it follows on from headlines involving the views of Sean Connery, Brian Cox, Stanley Baxter and JK Rowling, whilst the Murray family could hardly access the tennis courts of south west London without being asked about their voting intentions.
Why should the spin doctors assume that people's voting intentions will be swayed by the endorsement, or otherwise, of an actor, sports star or business man?
Like the rest of us, each of these folk have their own hinterland, a lifetime of experiences, and a philosophical approach to life. Presumably their views will be based on all of those personal details - in exactly the same way as for those of us less 'famous'.
There is something more than a little adolescent in looking for political guidance from those who we admire for other talents, and, given recent court cases, a warning against taking 'celebrity' at face value, perhaps.
Indeed, maybe the biggest example of such a simplistic approach has been evidenced with the presentation of Robert the Bruce as 'founder of the nation'.
Whilst there is no denying the import of history and the crucial nature of the Battle of Bannockburn, to present Bruce as the ultimate Scottish patriot is to make considerably more than five after adding two and two. You would expect information to be sketchy after seven centuries, but most historians suggest that, in the manner of the times, Bruce was far more interested in his own advancement than that of the nation.
To base the nationhood of modern Scotland on an Anglo-Norman nobleman from medieval times is perhaps as relevant as to look towards the views of a contemporary rock stars, actors or writers.
The whole point of self determination, surely, is that the term applies to the individual as much as the nation. It is about political maturity, refusing to blame others for our ills, and wanting to take responsibility for our own affairs. It is an end to the days of claiming: "A big Westminster boy did it and ran away" or "It's bad but what can we do about it?"
There are those who would claim that 300 years of Union should not be 'thrown away'. Nobody has yet explained how that history could be wiped out - any more than the English have expunged Roman, Norman or Anglo Saxon traits.
We are who we have become - but nations don't stop developing, and the state of Great Britain has clearly reached a time where the benefits of union are outweighed by the need for freedom of national expression and the imperative to take responsibility for our own affairs.
Just as the child is father to the man, the union can be father to a more confident, outward looking, independent Scotland
I am leerie of those who suggest the complexities of Westminster rule are somehow a good thing and that the quest for independence is based on a wish for feeble simplicity in government. Adults often take the line with children: "It's too complicated, you wouldn't understand." Usually they do so when they have no better, more reasoned, argument.
In Scotland, we need the simplicity of a government more closely linked with the people who vote for it, and to their aspirations as a society; we don't need the simplicity of celebrity endorsements.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article