LET me clarify: I do not consider myself a hillwalker.
The ascription suggests professionalism and seems a poor man's mountaineering. I disapprove of mountaineering, with its jangling equipment, beards and use of nature for leisure-amenity.
I feel I should stop there, on a nicely negative note, before I get all positive, which makes me feel treacly. Negativity is man's work, but I suppose a bit of boyish enthusiasm is called for here.
I'd be lost without hills. Recently, when considering a colourful tattoo for my pallid torso, I listed loves that had stood the test of time: Hibs, the guitar, JRR Tolkien. I'd never get a Hibs tattoo. It'd be like having "fail" stencilled on one's body.
I love Tolkien, but in isolated putrid places on the internut, you find him advanced falsely as a purely Anglo-Saxon writer. He was, say the new supremacist nutters, anti-Celtic, which is absurd, as much of his inspiration was Celtic and his Elvish language based on Welsh. I dread the discovery of a letter in which he expresses anti-Scottish sentiment, as did George Orwell, for example.
I wouldn't get a guitar, as it contains too many strings, which prevents me from playing it properly. And I wouldn't get a hill, though I've always needed one in my life. It wouldn't work as a tattoo, unless maybe mid-chest, where it might resemble a third moob.
Nonetheless, I need my hills. They allow the sensitive citizen to rise above the furore and breathe. There's nothing better than a local one in the city.
Even when living in a wasteland, I ascended acid-soiled slopes to seek freedom and perspective that little bit nearer the sky. Grass underfoot, with a wind caressing the lobes, you rejoin the conspiracy of wild things, and thank Pan for the gift of an uneven terrain.
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