ROBERT McNeil's charming portrait of Sir Teddy Taylor (“Right-wing hound’s bark was worse than his bite”, November 17) reminded me that my late mother somewhat admired him. She lived in Townhead and remembered him from his first election campaign in 1958: he was the first person she'd ever voted for.
She came from a Conservative voting family who thought that you needed businessmen to run the country and that by the 1970s Len Murray was the most dangerous man in the country. Though she agreed with his politics, I suspect there was something more than just political concordance; Sir Teddy had that little bit of sparkle that so few, if any, contemporary Scottish politicians possess.
Aside from reminiscences, Mr McNeil's piece prompted me to finally read Teddy Boy Blue, Taylor's autobiography. I was amused to learn that he attributed his lack of impact in Mrs Thatcher's Shadow Cabinet to his habit of making outrageous and impractical suggestions such as the next Conservative government should discourage the practice of agriculture. The suggestion, he claims, had a logical and economic base. Bizarrely, his nonsense has been wholeheartedly taken up by the present-day Labour government.
If Taylor's performance at Shadow Cabinet level was something of a failure, his leadership of the Scotland Says No campaign was successful on a number of levels: it stopped devolution in its tracks, forced the Callaghan government into an unwanted election and helped propel Mrs Thatcher into Number 10. Two cheers for Teddy.
In 1997, contra Taylor, I voted for devolution without hesitation. What I didn't vote for was the destructive centralisation of power at Holyrood with the concomitant emasculation of local government. Perhaps I should have seen that coming. And whilst it's undeniable that by the early 1980s Sir Teddy and the Conservative Party were staunchly anti-devolution, this was not always the case. Ted Heath's Declaration of Perth in 1968 committed the Conservative Party to establish a devolved assembly. Taylor too, in 1974, pledged his commitment to "a Scottish Assembly to ensure that decision-making is removed from London". Times change. The time has come for the Scottish Conservatives to once again pledge their commitment to devolution: to remove power from Holyrood.
Whether you call it, decentralisation, subsidiarity, localism, local patriotism, regionalism, or, distributism: devolution in Scotland would involve a fundamental and structural dismantling of the centralised pseudo-state that the cosy, left-wing consensus has successfully constructed at Holyrood. Devolution in Scotland must go beyond simple administrative devolution: it must devolve power into a governance model that re-empowers local authorities, introduces regional mayorships and fundamentally shifts power from the managerial class at Holyrood to local people, communities and their local, elected representatives.
One of the many failures of the Conservative approach to devolution/Heath's Declaration in the late 1960s was its self-inflicted top-down methodology. That mistake should not be repeated. Devolution in Scotland presents the party with a disruptive opportunity for the party to model locally-generated, ground-up policy. Such a policy, and approach, has the power to unite common-sense decentralisers across the political spectrum.
Graeme Arnott, Stewarton.
Read more letters
- Why wait, Anas Sarwar? Stand up to Keir Starmer now
- Be prepared for power cuts, reminders of the madness of net zero
Another spin doctor at our expense
WE learn that the SNP is to make more than a third of its headquarters' staff redundant in what is widely regarded as an urgent cost-cutting exercise. It's well-known that the party is struggling to attract substantial donations, and declining numbers of members means reduced membership fees. Fewer back-office staff will negatively impact the party's ability to get its message out there, still desperately trying to convince us that the break-up of the UK would be just super for us.
So what does John Swinney do? He recruits long-term nationalist politico Marco Biagi as his 16th spin-doctor to advise him "on political positioning and messaging". And in case anyone didn't realise it, us taxpayers pay Scottish Government spin-doctors' salaries, not the SNP. Maybe Mr Swinney is more canny than he routinely appears?
Martin Redfern, Melrose.
Under occupation by Big Energy
AS I travel around the Highlands trying to avoid the heartbreaking scars of industrialisation creeping across the landscape, I have become increasingly aware of the presence of the navy and green vehicles belonging to SSE. I am either passing them parked at the side of the road, being overtaken by them, behind them or in a queue with at least one of them.
I encounter transporters with diggers and other large machinery careering around our narrow roads pushing me and others into the side and sometimes off the edge of the road as they pass.
When I am at home I hear helicopters hovering overhead, light aircraft weaving backwards and forwards and drones buzzing across the land and yet no planning applications have yet been submitted.
I am taken back to the awful time when the Beauly-Denny power line was constructed and the sound of vehicles beeping, crushing and unloading rock and again the helicopters were shattering the peace. Our roads were a terrifying place to be as many involved in the devastation used them as little more than a race track.
I really don’t know how much more the communities can take. People are under incredible mental and financial stress. They see the lives they have built with hard work and passion being systematically dismantled by the insane reality that rural Scotland and its inhabitants have been sold out to the wealthy global investment companies who pretend they are concerned about the planet as they shatter the environment around us.
We are under occupation by Big Energy with SSE as the main aggressor in northern Scotland. They along with other multinationals also demand we accept even more massive swooshing wind turbines with demonic red flashing lights to be connected to a metallic jungle of transmission lines and sprawling substations and energy traders inundate us with proposals for huge battery storage units; our precious silent black nights gone forever.
Where are our elected representatives? Too feart to speak up and needing a spine transplant before they will demand action to protect the people who voted them in. Precious few are on our side and those that are find little support from others.
What a shameful situation to be in. Our governments back the multinationals against us and close their ears and eyes to our pleas for help and our tears. I have never known anything so appalling and so chillingly widespread in a so-called democracy. Those who sit on the fence and refuse to act will soon find their comfortable seats and political careers hanging on a shoogly peg as those they have so disgracefully let down seek to punish them at the ballot box.
Lyndsey Ward, Spokeswoman for Communities B4 Power Companies, Beauly.
Dripping roast for wind sector
NET Zero Watch has just published alarming data released by the Low Carbon Contracts Company. Those of a nervous disposition should look away now.
The Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm has become the fourth wind farm to have received more than £1 billion in subsidy payments in just its seventh year of operation. The other wind farms which have received more than £1bn in subsidy are Walney Extension £1.7bn, Hornsea One £1.6bn and Dudgeon £1.2bn. There are lots more in the pipeline.
This Contract for Difference (CfD) is a dripping roast for the wind industry but an albatross around UK electricity consumers' necks. Whatever happened to the monotonously frequent promises of abundant, reliable and cheap wind electricity for our homes, businesses and industry and thus drive our UK economy? Looks like the answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.
Clark Cross, Linlithgow.
Networking extravaganzas
WITH the COP climate conference in Baku drawing to a conclusion I would like to draw attention to something that was mentioned at a Parliamentary Defence Committee hearing last year. A high-ranking member of the UK armed forces was boasting about how he'd attended a previous COP and an official from a Gulf state had come up to him and questioned him about the possibility of buying British fighter jets. This is probably still viewable on social media. Are these COPs just giant networking events?
Geoff Moore, Alness.
Cold, clinical and callous
ON Monday's Politics Live on BBC2, I was quite taken aback by a doctor, fully committed to assisted dying, who came out with an insensitive remark to the effect that the biggest obstacle faced by those putting this idea forward was the relatives clinging to their loved ones, the subtext suggesting that the patient would be put off going down the route to assisted dying as a result.
That struck me as a cold, clinical and callous comment from a technocrat more at home with the implementation of procedure rather than with the awareness of the emotions surrounding such a situation.
That utterance came across to me as a dismissive description of intense familial concerns.
Those who are in favour of assisted dying come out loud and clear, with the obligatory and customary nod towards compassion, that this law will remove the time-consuming and costly inconvenience of caring for the terminally ill while dressing it up as a sensitive approach to rescuing the patient from excruciating pain.
That remark by that particular doctor hints that it may not be too long before the floodgates open to make assisted dying readily available for all age groups and for many more conditions if this bill passes into law.
Or am I reading too much into her ill-considered comment?
Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.
One for the Hall of fame
THE superb performances of Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell and Damien Lewis as Henry VIII are only surpassed by the beautiful wardrobes and settings which make Wolf Hall a the most intense and enjoyable BBC drama production.
I have no problem whatsoever in paying my annual licence fee for the joy of watching such excellent drama.
Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen.
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 here