HOW unfair of Fred McDermid to blame Scotland's defeat at Murrayfield on that awful Flower of Scotland when the Auld Enemy can beat us hollow even after mouthing most unenthusiastically the lacklustre anthem of the old Union (May 28). He should reflect on what they might do to us if they were allowed to sing their own magnificent anthem, Blake's Jerusalem.
What a pity our own national poet could not come up with anything comparable. The really dreadful Scots Wha Hae must have been penned on one of Rabbie's off days. Surely Flower of Scotland is a considerable advance on gory beds and drained veins?
I disagree with Mr McDermid that it is anti-English, it is merely anti-Edward. And what about the conciliatory second verse? ''Those days are gone now and in the past they must remain'' - a wise sentiment missing from most other national anthems.
I would also contest the view that Scotland's rugby anthem conveys nothing to teams from Italy and Samoa. Wasn't Garibaldi, the great Italian patriot, an admirer of William Wallace, erecting a statue to his memory?
As for Samoa, the home and final resting place of Robert Louis Stevenson, its most famous resident, I would be very surprised if the inhabitants were uninterested in the colourful but often turbulent history of that country which inspired Kidnapped and Catriona.
Flower of Scotland, in the best tradition of Freudian analysis, confronts the past, comes to terms with it, and looks confidently forward to the future. It is an anthem to be proud of and Fred McDermid should think again before rejecting it as the Scottish national anthem at Murrayfield and elsewhere.
Ethel S Goodall,
97 Queensborough Gardens,
Glasgow.
June 1.
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