Enterprise and Culture Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Official Report 121KB pdf

---

National Anthem

We move to item 3, which concerns a request to discuss a national anthem. At this point, I hand over to my fellow baritone, Michael Matheson.

This issue was on the agenda for a previous meeting, but it had to be deferred because of an overrun.

During the recent Commonwealth games in Melbourne, there was some debate about a Scottish national anthem, largely because a number of songs were being used as our national anthem. However, in recent discussions on the matter, no consensus was reached, other than on the point that we should have a national anthem.

I want to be clear that you are talking about a Scottish national anthem.

Of course. The discussions showed that we need a national debate to find the song that should become Scotland's national anthem. Indeed, the First Minister himself has said that that debate must take place.

I do not believe that it is up to this committee or any other group of politicians to decide on the song that should become our national anthem. However, we might have a locus in the matter. For example, who will facilitate a national debate? How will people reach, and then take forward, a view on the matter?

Now that the First Minister believes that we need a national debate and given the national consensus on the matter, I think that we can take a number of different approaches. For example, the debate could be directly facilitated by the committee, a civic organisation or, indeed, by a non-Executive body. The matter could then be passed to Parliament for a formal decision.

I am happy to discuss with the Executive, civic organisations and any other interested parties the different ways of facilitating a national debate and then to bring the options back to the committee as a catalyst to ensure that the debate happens.

Thank you. I believe that Murdo Fraser wants to say a word or two.

I admire Michael Matheson's tenacity in bringing this perennial issue back to the committee. We have a national anthem in Scotland: it is "God Save the Queen", which is played at official ceremonial events and usually when members of the royal family are present. The debate is really about whether we should have an anthem that we play, possibly at official events, but certainly at sporting events.

Michael Matheson rightly said that there is no consensus as to what, if any, anthem should be chosen. That is the first objection that I have to the approach. There are a number of songs—"Flower of Scotland", "Scotland the Brave" and "Highland Cathedral"—and, for one reason or another, they are all inappropriate. "Flower of Scotland" is inappropriate because some of the sentiments that are expressed in it are jingoistic and anti-English; "Scotland the Brave" is inappropriate because, although it is a good tune, it does not have words that match the upbeat nature of the music; and "Highland Cathedral" is a good tune, but it has no words at all.

Even if we were to agree in principle that we should have a Scottish national anthem, the practicalities of agreeing which tune we might use—whether any of the three that I have mentioned or any other—would be difficult. I am not sure what mechanism could be put in place to do that. However, I have a more fundamental objection to the approach. Michael Matheson said that we need a national debate, but that has already been tried in the recent past. I remember that at least one newspaper tried to stir up a debate about what the national anthem should be and, as usual, did not come to any great conclusion.

Philosophically, it is not for politicians to try to dictate what song should emerge as our new anthem if we want one. The Scottish Football Association used to play "God Save the Queen" before Scottish international matches, but it stopped doing that because it became clear that people on the terraces wanted to sing "Flower of Scotland", so the SFA adopted that as the anthem that it played before Scottish international matches and the Scottish Rugby Union followed suit. Both those instances are cases of sporting bodies reacting to public opinion.

If we are to get a new anthem for Scotland—and none of the current candidates fits the bill—a song will emerge in time, it will be adopted by the people, who will start singing it on the terraces and stands and we politicians will take our lead from the people and adopt it as our anthem. We need a bottom-up approach, not a top-down one and, although I admire Michael Matheson's persistence, the committee should not trouble itself with the matter any further.

You are not suggesting a referendum, then.

Not on this issue.

I will resist the temptation to express my preference for any song, words or tune or to engage with any of Murdo Fraser's analysis in reaching his conclusion. However, I reach the same conclusion by a different route. I fundamentally disagree with Michael Matheson's assertion that there is a national consensus that there should be a national debate on the issue. I mix in wide and varied local and national circles, and I can think of several dozen other issues on which people would rather have a national debate. That is not to say that there should be no discussion about a national anthem. There will inevitably be further discussion about it and, no doubt, we will continue to receive surveys and phone calls from national newspapers asking about our personal preferences. It is absolutely fine that we, as citizens of Scotland, engage in that discussion, but, to my mind, it is—I shall say this politely—inappropriate that the committee should spend valuable parliamentary time debating the matter.

I apologise for being late.

I meant to say that we have received apologies from Jamie Stone as well. He will also be a bit late.

There is obviously a desire to have a song that we can agree is Scotland's song, but we have competing songs and are not quite certain which one we should use. In a way, Murdo Fraser has emphasised that point. The fact is that we have a Scottish Parliament and are trying to strengthen our identity as a nation. We can still be a nation within the UK—it does not matter how members want to view the nation politically—but, because we are trying to establish clarity on what we are about, there is a need for such a debate. We do not have to spend a great deal of time on it. I would really like to know how other countries resolved the issue of having a national song. How was that chosen in the past, and who was instrumental in arriving at the decision? If we find that it was a political decision, we may not feel quite so awkward about discussing the matter. There needs to be a real conversation. I see no reason for the Scottish Parliament not to lead that.

I am sure that members of the Scottish Parliament agree with Michael Matheson that we should have the debate that he proposes. However, I agree with Murdo Fraser and Susan Deacon that it is entirely wrong to bring such an issue down to the level of individual committees, made up of individual politicians. First, I suspect that we would not get consensus, even around this table, on what the song should ultimately be, or even on how we might go about creating a shortlist from which to choose. Secondly, I come back to Susan Deacon's point that such decisions come about with better public support when they are taken organically and result from a genuine wish by people to sing a particular song. I have been to various events with which a theme song is associated and watched people mouthing an approximation of the words, which is cringingly embarrassing. That is the case with national songs. I see national teams across the world, made up of people from all kinds of nations, trying to sing a national song that is not in their first language or for which they do not know the words—it is awful. Let us have a more organic process. I do not think that it is appropriate for the committee to deal with the matter.

Perhaps the issue could be aired in the Parliament at a members' business debate.

We could have a wee singing competition.

We could bring in Katie Boyle.

As long as we do not bring in the convener.

I would prefer a wee Cliff Richard number.

Hear, hear!

We're all going on a summer holiday.

When I intimated that I would write to the committee on the matter and submit a short paper to initiate the discussion, I was conscious that some of my unionist colleagues would have difficulty with that. Although they like the mantra that Scotland is the best small nation in the world, for some strange reason they do not think that we should have a national anthem. That is a matter for their conscience, rather than anything else.

Members recognise that a debate is taking place. Sadly, Christine May misunderstood what I said and what I have written in my paper. I am not suggesting that the committee should lead the debate. Many people are saying that there should be a national debate—I say to Susan Deacon that the First Minister thinks that there should be one. No one seems to be leading that debate. I am not suggesting that this committee or any other committee of the Parliament should necessarily do that. However, we should try to provide some focus on the issue of who should lead the debate. It could be a range of organisations and individuals, but at the moment there is no such focus.

I am conscious that some colleagues seem to oppose my proposal for some strange reason. However, I have no doubt that the debate will emerge. I am sure that the people of Scotland will identify with the new song much more closely than with the draconian "God save the Queen" that we have at the moment.

In what way is it draconian?

With its anti-Scottish sentiment.

I am with the convener in wanting a Cliff Richard number, to be commissioned by a task force—following focus groups and a special inquiry by an expert working group—to come up with a new song for Scotland.

Far be it from me to suggest that even Michael Matheson has retreated into the silo from which we all come and made this a debate about whether members are unionists or nationalists. A new song will emerge. In my view, "Highland Cathedral" is the best tune, but it does not have the appropriate words. This afternoon I conducted a small survey among members of the Parliament and came up with a wide range of suggestions, ranging from Adam and the Ants to "Scots, wha hae". There is no consensus, even in the Parliament.

Did you conduct the survey at your group meeting?

No, among the wider public.

What about "Things can only get better"?

"Simply the Best" was obviously a favourite. However, the time has come to say, "Thanks, Michael, but no thanks."

I think that that is the majority view.

I was going to push it to a vote, but I think that I will leave it.