IT is amazing. Despite The Herald's, and others', attempt to raise the standard for a singable, popular, quality, and acceptable Scottish anthem, we still have the self-deprecating anti-Scots correspondents favouring the racist, British nationalist and anti-Scottish, English ''Jelly Bean'' anthem. How many times have readers and journalists quoted the fourth and fifth verses of the Great British Anthem?
God Grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring,
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.
Confound their politics
And curse their knavish tricks . . . etc.
This was sung in Drury Lane Theatre whenever King Geordie entered the royal box, and other theatres throughout England. The British/English Government was in a state of confusion over the Jacobite army's advance into England. Despite the fact that most of Cherlie's paramilitary, anti-Parliamentary, Scots sojers had no wish to be on English soil. They were content to stay at hame and have him dissolve the Parliamentary, 1707 - but not the regal, 1603 - Union, upon landing in Scotland and then taking Edinburgh by storm.
His faither, Jimmy VIII, made the same declaration upon landing at Peterheid in 1715: unfortunately for him, as in the Scottish republican rebellion of 1797 and the Jacobite Rebellion in 1745, the French reinforcements had trouble with the English Navy and weather. King Geordie, and others, had a fast ship in the Thames laden with goods ready to flee the advancing ''Sweaty Socks''. The London banks and clearance hooses tried to stem the panic run by paying out in sixpenny pieces.
There was no need. The Scots were only too glad to return home and dance a Heilan fling, to dry their plaidies, when they safely recrossed the Tweed.
The so-called Parliamentary Union, when the Scottish people were not consulted by a double referendum, was signed by most of the ''nobility'', succumbing to bribes and threats. Some received even less than a modern-day cooncillor's odd freebie, a Labourite peerage, or threat of career blockage.
Daniel Defoe, the English Unionist spy, who helped to bribe the original North British ''Unionists'', described them thus: ''The great men are posting to London for places and Honours, every man full of his own merit and afraid of everything near him: I never saw so much mean trick, sham, pride, jealousy, and cutting of friends' throats as there is among the noblemen.''
Sound familiar? For those political prostitutes the only worthy anthem would be:
Oh Hooer o' Scotland,
When will we see yer Clypes again,
Who Cringed and Lived for,
Westminster Bung and Big Ben?
Donald Anderson,
22 Southampton Drive, Glasgow.
January 22.
EVER since I discovered that God Save the Queen contains a verse about ''crushing rebellious Scots'' I have refused to acknowledge it as my national anthem. A nation's anthem should not encourage genocide against a part of that nation, or even the slaughter of another nation. It is not polite.
That would rule out our adoption of the rousing song Flower of Scotland as our anthem for international purposes. It is a song of the struggling underdog, suffering the oppression of a powerful neighbour, and as such has its place in the nation's heart, and on the rugby field. But it is not the image of our country which we want to promote internationally for evermore. Any serious contender should avoid racist overtones which could offend others.
We should be looking for a song which projects Scotland as a modern European nation, with an ancient past and culture, which will hold out the hand of friendship to all our brother nations across the world, aye, and even across the Border.
The song which will do that for us is Auld Lang Syne, with a couple of the original verses by Burns, and a couple specially written, modern verses from our modern poets.
I am disappointed that your poll has been dominated by introspective songs of the past, overlooking the new future about to dawn on us. Perhaps it is a mistake to count the votes so soon, while the debate is still taking place.
Alasdair Sutherland,
8 Langbank Rise, Kilmacolm.
January 22.
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