Michael Russell did not "order" anyone to introduce a mandatory Scottish literature question (Scots Question is not the answer, Comment, November 18).
It was in fact the recommendation of the Scottish Studies working group with a wide representation from our cultural and educational communities, including teachers and former teachers. How ironic therefore that critics should accuse the Scottish Government of political interference in education or even worse, "nationalism gone mad". I suspect it is more a case of some people with North British prejudices who have gone mad over this. They have certainly lost all sense of perspective to see this as somehow undermining the Curriculum for Excellence, removing choice and attempting to manipulate teenagers.
In comparison with other countries, including our nearest neighbours, what the Scottish Government has proposed is very modest: at least one Scottish text chosen from a list of prescribed texts, in order to complete one answer out of two in the literature paper, which means the Scottish answer would account for 20% of the total. The list of prescribed texts, currently being discussed, would actually help to widen choice as far too many schools still offer the same predictable range of GCSE texts year after year.
And how sad to see Ian Bell apparently supporting the cultural cringers and naysayers who think this is pointless, counter-productive and possibly harmful. Yes, we should indeed beware of the Shakespeare effect, which is almost endemic in our schools, but to extrapolate from this to argue that any list of prescribed texts will destroy all love of literature, regardless of how it is taught or assessed, is quite absurd.
John Hodgart
Kilwinning
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