THE fiddler brought his slow lament to a close as the church sat silent and expectant.
The minister announced, “God Save the Queen” and the church rose as one. Rigidly to attention. A vision of socially distanced tweed and tartan, dark ties, medals and face masks; stock still and solemn as the organ blasted out the national anthem.
As the church slowly emptied into the chill of an early spring dusk on Deeside, the gathered assembly, although quick to disperse due to the current Covid regulations, took a few moments to exchange words of comfort and warmth to each other – many sharing personal reminiscences of the man we had just paid tribute to, His Late Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and his legacy in the north-east of Scotland.
Two days earlier, on BBC Radio 4s News Quiz, Glasgow comedian Susie McCabe quipped that the coverage of the Duke’s death for the “whole of Scotland” was being like “a World Cup when we don’t qualify.” Her meaning being, it wasn’t anything to do with us.
I don’t for one minute doubt that many people in Scotland, as well as many in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, had concerns at the level of coverage of the death of His Royal Highness – whatever their views on monarchy. But Susie McCabe’s sweeping generalisation, that the “whole of Scotland” felt the same way is, I fear, endemic of a central belt dominance of Scotland that has always existed, but which has gotten far more far noticeable in the last 20 years.
As I saw with my own eyes on Sunday night, many in Scotland did feel deeply at the death of the Duke of Edinburgh. And, on so many other issues, the views and priorities, the way of life of people in the north-east, the Highlands, our islands, the Borders, are ignored or, worse, disparaged and sniggered at because they don’t fit with the vision of “modern Scotland” by the urban liberal left for whom Scotland starts at Wishaw and ends at Perth. Never was this more evident than in the debate over “jabs-v-jags” when we were lectured by Glasgow-based politicians and commentators that “In Scotland it is jags”. Well, in the north-east that’s not strictly true – but that’s a topic for another column.
There is more than one Scotland. Those people who stood to attention at Crathie Kirk that Sunday evening to respect a man they saw as embodying the values they hold dear are just as Scottish as those who shrugged at the death, not through disrespect or callousness, but through a perception of his life being irrelevant to them and their day-to-day lives.
I am no position to pass judgement on anyone’s position on monarchy nor on any other issue, for that matter. But the point is, Scotland is a country like any other, with a wide variety of backgrounds, views, political affiliations, life experiences, relationships. “Scotland” does not feel, think or act as one. And neither should it.
But it is a sad reflection of politics in Scotland in the 21st century that unless you subscribe to particular view – political or social – that you are somehow “less Scottish” than those who do. This is unhealthy in any country. One’s nationality should not be questioned simply because of one’s outlook.
Whatever your view on the constitutional settlement, on Brexit, the royal family, country sports, levels of taxation, education or the NHS, it makes you no less Scottish. There is more than one Scotland. And until we recognise that Scotland is not a homogeneous blob and stop equating political allegiance with nationality, our politics will never move on.
Let’s recognise the diverse, exciting, dynamic country we are. Let’s empower our regions. Let’s see real devolution out of our central belt cities and into the parts of the country that feel ignored or dismissed and respect the opinions of all Scots. And let’s put to bed the idea that Scotland speaks and thinks as one. It doesn’t. We are a gloriously diverse melting point of lifestyles and ideals. And that should be recognised and celebrated.
Andrew Bowie is Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel