|
Cultural Genocide Revisited
Good old Stirling! Centre of Scotland, the dividing area between Highland and Lowland, and site of two of the most famous battles in our nation's history. The castle towers above the plain, dominating the landscape, whilst a short distance away lies the Victorian excresence of the Wallace Monument, unsightly pseudo-Gothic in appearance but a lasting tribute to the Guardian of the Realm in olden times. A modern transport hub, with excellent business facilities, and an ideal central point for the tourist intent on viewing both historic and scenic Scotland. So why is there something rotten in its heart?
Stirling Council have long been known for their track record of bizarre decisions, culminating in their preparations for the Y2K Millenium celebrations. Believe it or not, they proposed building a giant effigy of King Robert the Bruce - and burning it! Forced to backtrack (despite earnest exhortations that this was 'an ancient Scottish tradition' - anyone out there ever heard of it?), they decided on a wolf effigy instead. This had Pictish connotations, more fuss ensued, and eventually they settled on a few fireworks instead. You might have thought that by this time they had learned their lesson. Don't kid yourself!
Stirling University were casting about for land on which to build a few rugby pitches. Given the current state of the national team, you might think this isn't a bad idea - and we certainly don't, provided an appropriate area could be utilised. But, in their wisdom, the Uni decided to use an ancient battle site, one of the two mentioned in the first paragraph above. Not Bannockburn - even they aren't that stupid! Instead, they chose the site of Kenneth MacAlpin's battle against the Picts in 834 A.D., which resulted in the creation of the Scottish state as we understand it. MacAlpin became King of Picts and Scots, and the Scots victory over the Picts ensured that the amalgamation of the two races was ensured. They then went on to defeat the Angles at Athelstaneford in Lothian, when the Saltire was adopted as the national flag, making it the oldest known national flag in the world. The site of this first battle was traditionally held to be marked by the Gathering Stone, a monolithic monument standing 10 feet tall. This standing stone has stood on the site for well in excess of 2,000 years, having been an object of veneration long before its adoption as the rallying point for the Pictish and Scottish armies prior to the battle.
So what's the fuss? Stirling Council Planning Department have now granted Stirling University permission to build rugby pitches around the stone. The situation is far better described here at Electric Scotland where an excellent article gives the full story. We won't add to it except to urge those who read this story, and feel as aggrieved as we do, to e-mail the Stirling University Public Relations department and express your discontent at their insensitive and destructive behaviour. We warn them now - this sorry saga isn't over yet!
Visit this website here for the latest on this story, and SIGN the on-line petition now!
Since writing the above, an exchange of e-mails took place with Stirling Councillor John Holliday. The e-mail we sent him (and all the other councillors) is below, as is his reply :
Dear Sir / Madam,
We wish to strongly protest the decision by Stirling Council Planning Department to allow Stirling University to develop the area around the Gathering Stone for use as rugby pitches.
This displays a cavalier disregard for Scottish culture and heritage, due to the provenance of the site itself. As you may (or may not) know, the Gathering Stone, whilst an ancient object of veneration in its own right, is also held to mark the battle site where a unified Scotland came into being in 834 A.D. The site of the creation of our nation deserves better treatment than to be turned into pitches for games, and whilst we do regret that the Scottish national rugby side could almost certainly do with fresh blood and better training, we hold that there are almost certainly better places to provide
such facilities than on the ground at Airthrey.
Please look at this again and reconsider this action, which merely reinforces already held prejudices against your Council - reference the somewhat ill-advised effigy of the Bruce which you proposed to burn at the millenium... Questions are most certainly now being asked with regard to your collective position on the cultural and historical sites within your area.
Looking forward to a swift response,
Ian Fraser
for SFI
Dear Mr Fraser
First may I apologise for the delay in replying to your e-mail. I have been making some enquiries and have found that this application did not come before the Planning Panel (of which I am a member) but was passed under 'Delegated Powers' as explained below.
Each week an information bulletin is sent to all councillors. This contains details of planning applications received and the action to be taken on them proposed by Council officers in the Planning Department. Under powers delegated to these officers this action will automatically follow unless a Councillor requests the application to be brought before the Planning Panel (any councillor can do this). Like most councillors, I check the bulletin for references to my own ward (Bridge of Allan) and tend to leave issues affecting other wards to be raised by the relevant councillor. In this case the relevant councillor is Councillor Susan Love (Logie ward).
The Planning officers involved tell me that there was discussion with Historic Scotland before approval was given and their comments were taken into account in the final plan.
Regards
Councillor John Holliday
Of all the Councillors on the list, he was the only one we had the courtesy of a reply from, so hats off to Mr Holliday. We have forwarded this response to Susan Love, and await a response (if any) from her. We'll keep you posted...
Here is Ms Love's reply in full. All credit to her, when she did respond it was a full and frank answer. Here we go:
Dear Mr Fraser,
Thank you for your and your colleague's further e-mails. As you may know I am the only Scottish National Party councillor in Stirling Council. I also work for George Reid MSP, who lives close to the University. I will happily set out our ongoing involvement in the Airthrey stone issue, though I hope that you will read this response with an open mind, as I am not inclined to respond to accusing and offensive e-mails.
Last year Mr Reid and I raised the issue of the Airthrey site with the University, Historic Scotland, the Scottish Civic Trust, Stirling Council and the then Minister for Culture, Rhona Brankin MSP. Stirling Council took the view that there were no grounds to oppose the proposal and correspondence with the Minister of Culture, after consultation with experts - including Historic Scotland - concluded that: - the stone is considerably older than the battle - there is no proven connection between the stone and the battle - there is no definitive proof that the battle occurred at Airthrey [indeed, it may have been a series of skirmishes ranging from Tullibody westwards] The University argued that, with the construction of its new Olympic pool on the site of the current rugby pitches (as a result of the Scottish Institute of Sport being established within the University) no other ground existed for the construction of new pitches. It pledged to preserve the stone in a protected area and this was included in the conditions laid down by Stirling Council planners. I must be clear to represent the opinions of all my constituents and you should be aware that the Student's Association indicated their support for new rugby pitches and accepted that there was no other land available.
Since that time, Mr Reid and I have continued to monitor the situation carefully. My minimum position is to ensure that the stone is adequately protected and that the surrounding environment (an area of great scenic beauty) is safeguarded. Mr Reid will also continue to push, in consultation with the Minister, for Scotland to have a Register of Battlefields (as is the case in England). Indeed, I moved this debate at the Scottish National Party Annual Conference in September 2000 and to establish a register - which would prevent this situation arising in the future - is now SNP policy. A register would enable historians to research sites and determine their importance - with their work then being considered at the appropriate planning meetings. This would stop organisations pushing ahead regardless, without public consultation, as happened in this case. Under present legislation, we cannot properly protect Scotland's past and that is why we must push for a register to be introduced.
At the moment, I have to accept the expert advice that the stone predates the Airthrey battle, and that there is no proof that the battle took place on the site. The University has not handled this affair in a transparent manner, with no public consultation. Whilst they are under no obligation to do so, I would have expected at least some degree of participation. To that end, Mr Reid and I are meeting with Estate managers of the University next week to discuss the matter in greater detail.
Be assured, that as Scottish National Party representatives, Mr Reid and I are clear on the importance of Scotland's past. I would also strongly advise that all those interested in the preservation of that past write to the Minister for Culture, Alan Wilson MSP supporting the implementation of thorough research of Scotland's battlefields and the subsequent implementation of a Register of Battlefields.
Yours for Scotland, Susan Susan Love Parliamentary Assistant to George Reid MSP
All in all, a comprehensive response. We are annoyed that she took our missives as 'accusing and offensive', but are happy to set the record straight and her reply is unedited in any way. We will also be doing as she suggests and contacting Alan Wilson regarding this matter. We will also update readers on any further developments in this case.
Return to Articles Index
|
