John F Kennedy Assassination (50th Anniversary)
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-07824, in the name of Richard Lyle, on the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament acknowledges the 50th anniversary of the assassination of the 35th President of the United States, John F Kennedy, on 22 November 1963; remembers what it considers his great achievements as a political leader especially with regard to foreign affairs, civil rights and economic policy; commends what it believes were his efforts to limit the threat of nuclear weapons through diplomatic measures, most notably by signing the limited test ban treaty with the UK and Soviet Union; considers that he was instrumental in progressing the civil rights movement through open public support and executive orders, which resulted in interventions such as the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity; applauds what it believes was the recovery of the US economy under his presidency and understands that it enjoyed its longest sustained expansion since the second world war; recognises what it considers his ambitious vision of safely sending an American to the Moon by the end of the 1960s; believes with sadness that his time in office was unjustly cut short, and honours with sincerity and respect the memory of President Kennedy who, it understands, travelled through central Scotland in 1939 before delivering a speech in Glasgow on behalf of his father, Joseph, who was the USA’s ambassador to the UK at that time.
12:34
I thank all members of the Scottish Parliament who supported my motion, which allowed the debate to take place, and I welcome to the chamber Zoja Bazarnic, who is the principal officer at the United States consulate general. I also thank my American intern, Dana Cullen, who aided me in preparing my speech.
Today, we remember former US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Tomorrow, 22 November, is the 50th anniversary of his tragic assassination. I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the accomplishments of President Kennedy, who was one of the most noteworthy political leaders of the 20th century.
America’s youngest elected President, who had served just over 1,000 days in office, was shot dead on 22 November 1963 while being driven in his presidential limousine through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. It was a shock to all. Most people of my generation remember where they were on that fateful day.
Kennedy’s assassination has been the focus of conspiracy, mystery and intrigue for the past 50 years. In countless books, articles, films and research, people have analysed and debated the information, producing unsatisfactory explanations for why a man with such enormous promise met such an untimely death. Questions about the gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald—did he act alone? How many bullets were fired? Where were the shots fired from?—continue to plague people who are fascinated by President Kennedy and the almost Shakespearian drama that surrounds his life, family and legacy.
In a recent newspaper article, it was suggested that President Kennedy foreshadowed the exact means of his death in a conversation with his wife, Jackie, on the morning of the assassination. Over 50 years, official reports have concluded that there were three bullets and one man and that the President’s death was the result of a horrible, random act of violence. However, the public have been unable to accept that. People have constantly sought to give Kennedy’s life meaning and are unable to believe that such a historic figure could be brought down by one lowly man.
That is testament to the man that JFK was and to his political accomplishments. The theories around his death might be provoking, but ultimately they detract from his presidency and accomplishments. Prior to being sworn into office, Kennedy had received a purple heart for service in world war two and a Pulitzer prize for his non-fiction book, “Profiles in Courage”. He was a young, exuberant, handsome man with a glamorous wife, all of which, along with his wit, intellect and charisma, fitted the family for celebrity in a way that was perfect for the age of television. He easily defeated Nixon in the first televised presidential debates and he was the first President to use the television to address the American people. In that way, Kennedy was able to connect to the public and appeal to Americans on a personal and emotional level. He has been described as having had a unique ability to combine substance with style and wisdom, particularly on significant issues such as war, peace, space and civil rights.
As most presidencies do, Kennedy’s presidency faced turbulent times. It was the era of the Cuban missile crisis, the early years of the Vietnam war and the construction of the Berlin wall. However, despite political obstacles, he emerged to initiate the first Apollo mission to the moon, displaying his visionary spirit. In foreign policy, he was instrumental in negotiating a nuclear weapons test ban treaty with the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, and he committed to a phased withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam. With a view to containing hostile relations, his presidency gave birth to the Peace Corps, and he was the first President to vocalise support for the civil rights movement. He drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which called for an end to voter discrimination, segregation of schools and other forms of discrimination.
Those were the achievements of a mere 22 months in office. What more might Kennedy have done had he lived? Some people suggest that his current popularity among politicians and the public is based more on the promise of what might have been than on the reality of his short term in office. Historian Dr James Boys has written:
“more than any other president, JFK is judged to a great extent on his promise, as opposed to his specific achievements in office.”
That might be true, but we must not overlook or underestimate the sense of joy that Kennedy brought to the presidency, which ultimately convinced the public of his greatness. He served at a time when cynicism towards the White House was at a minimum. Perhaps that helps to explain the longing for the days of Kennedy’s Camelot.
Kennedy was a man whom the public could stand behind and support. Through his handling of the Cuban missile crisis, he emerged as a heroic leader. Republicans and Democrats in America have sought to bask in Kennedy’s glory and often try to emulate his speeches and draw on him as a symbol. As we know, it is nothing less than extraordinary to find common ground between those two parties, so the fact that that happens speaks to the importance of Kennedy’s presidency. Unfortunately, many politicians today have failed to realise that Kennedy’s public image and persona were not just for appearance but had real substance as their basis.
Had Kennedy continued to live, he would surely have been elected for a second term. His presidency was on track to be the champion of the civil rights movement and to promote peaceful relations abroad, especially with the Soviet Union. Vietnam might have taken a far different course, as he was adamant about not committing more troops on the ground. However, we will never know about those possibilities. We will continue to wonder what could have been when we think of Kennedy and lament the loss.
Kennedy’s death has forever shaped how we remember him. Instead of remembering him for the myths of his death or his unrealised potential, we should remember him for being the man who inspired a nation, for the spirit that he brought to the presidency, for the accomplishments that he achieved in such a short time, for being a symbol for peaceful diplomacy, and for the duty that he gave to his country.
I will end with an excerpt written in the weeks that followed Kennedy’s death that aptly captures the essence of the late President. The excerpt was on display in the recent Andy Warhol exhibition in the Parliament. It says:
“And so the 35th President of United States was laid to rest, the four days that shocked the world came to an end, and the great and near great from around the world turned back to their own worlds. And in all the speeches, in all the eulogies, in all the comforting messages, nowhere was the world’s sentiment more clearly expressed than in a brief inscription on the back of a picture of the late president which was handed out at St. Matthews cathedral: ‘Dear God, please take care of your servant, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.’”
Sadly, years later, on 19 May 1994, Kennedy’s wife, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, died at 10.15 pm eastern standard time of cancer at her Fifth Avenue apartment in New York. So ended the Kennedy dynasty.
12:41
It is a cliché to ask, “Where were you when Kennedy was assassinated?” but some of us have a reply. I asked some colleagues.
John Pentland was in a house listening to the radio. He could not be more specific than that—or perhaps he was just being evasive.
Roderick Campbell pled the fifth amendment.
Nanette Milne was in the medical school library at Foresterhill in Aberdeen.
Mini-skirted Mary Scanlon was back-combing her hair in Montrose, ready to go to the Locarno to dance to Brian Poole and the Tremeloes. It was cancelled.
Elaine Murray was playing with her junior chemistry set and listening to the radio.
I was in the Cameo picture house, also in a mini-skirt, watching a Jacques Tati film. The film stopped. We thought that the projector had broken, but then, across the black screen came the words, “John F Kennedy has been assassinated.” Stunned to silence, the cinema emptied without people having been given any instruction to leave, and I felt that the world was a very bad place. Why?
When JFK became President, it seemed that a new world had a chance. He was charismatic and refreshing, with his stylish wife and charming children. The court of Camelot, as the White House and the entourage became known, seemed a breath of fresh air and promised so much to the impressionable teenager that I was: an end to wars, for a start. Wars have continued even up to today, of course. I recall what became known as the Cuban missile crisis: the 13-day confrontation in October 1962 between the Soviet Union and Cuba on one side, and the United States on the other. That crisis is now generally regarded as the moment in which the cold war came closest to turning into a nuclear conflict, and is the first documented instance of mutual assured destruction, which is aptly shortened to MAD, being discussed as a determining factor in a major international arms agreement. MAD—how appropriate. I truly thought then that world war three was inevitable. That was a chilling moment.
The Camelot court was not, of course, as clean as a whistle and the idyllic family was not so idyllic, but those were the days before the internet, texting, 24-hour news, satellite broadcasting, and people documenting events with their mobile phones.
When I review the reality of the Kennedy years—some good, some bad—with the benefit of historical appraisals, I recognise his achievements, but sometimes it is chalk and cheese. However, that does not detract from the promise that was snuffed out so brutally.
We can compare the election of JFK with the election of Barack Obama, not simply because of the means of reaching the electorate and the funding but because some of the hopes that rested on the shoulders of JFK seemed to transfer to and come alive again with the current first family. However, the current personable and eloquent President, though exuding some glamour and style to western eyes at least, has had a much tougher time from his electorate and the fourth estate. That is not necessarily a bad thing, although the results might sometimes depress us, but how would JFK and his family have fared today by comparison?
The assassination of JFK remains a seminal moment in international history, and it was followed five years later by the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy in the same year. Those three murders put a brutal stop to the influence of three substantial figures and, for the very young Christine Grahame, the promise of a different and better world.
12:45
I congratulate Richard Lyle on introducing this debate and I welcome the American consul to the gallery.
I tweeted last week that everyone of a certain age would be obsessed with the assassination of JFK this week, not surprisingly, because we can all remember where we were on the night of Friday 22 November 1963. I can go further than that, because 1963 was a momentous year in many ways as it was really the beginning of the 1960s in terms of the cultural shift, the first Beatles records and so on, and it was also a momentous year in politics. However, I can remember only one sentence that I heard in 1963. I was at a club at my secondary school on the evening of 22 November when somebody came into the room and then, 10 seconds later, the person in charge stood up and said—I can hear it as clearly as if it was yesterday—“President Kennedy has been shot three times in the head and he is dead.”
I am told that 40,000 books have been written about that event and about President Kennedy more generally. I must say that I have not read any of them, so I will not deal with who killed him. However, I have been convinced that the ballistic evidence shows that it could not have been just Lee Harvey Oswald. Clearly, many people speculate about who else was involved. I am told that JFK’s nephew, Robert Kennedy Jr, is going to write a book, which will come out next year, saying that the Central Intelligence Agency was involved.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time.
The best way to get mythologised is to die young, but I suppose the most interesting question for this debate is, what was John F Kennedy really like? What was he all about? He had a lot going for him, as Christine Grahame has reminded us, because he was not just young but glamorous, charismatic and eloquent, and he talked the language of change. There was a remarkable contrast between the politics that he represented in America and what was happening in the United Kingdom at the time. Conservative members will probably agree with that point, because it was the end of the old Conservative party when the grandees in 1963 picked the 14th Earl of Home as the next prime minister; after that, the Conservative party modernised itself.
JFK had a lot that contributed to the myth, but there have of course been many debunkers since then, although I think that some people have gone too far. I think that the feminist critique of his attitude to women is probably valid—in fact, it is certainly valid. However, others have gone too far. George Kerevan, for example, said in an article in The Scotsman a month ago that JFK was a fraud and liar, and that he generated cynicism about the effectiveness of democratic politics—I think that all that went too far. George Kerevan also said, quite strangely, that JFK won the election in 1960 through denying millions of black Americans the vote. In fact, the exact opposite of that is the truth. I urge people to read a really interesting article in The Guardian yesterday by Candace Allen, who said that it was basically the black vote that won Kennedy the 1960 election. That is also what is stated in Theodore White’s book “The Making of the President 1960”.
It is true that, in retrospect, Kennedy can be criticised for not moving faster, but he tried to get the civil rights bill through and, of course, Congress blocked it. A book that has recently come out—I have only read a review of it—“The Letters of John F Kennedy”, apparently has many letters between Kennedy and Martin Luther King that show the former’s commitment to the civil rights movement. Of course, partly out of respect and in memory of John F Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson made sure that the civil rights bill went through Congress the year following JFK’s assassination.
A lot has been written about JFK’s role in foreign affairs and nuclear weapons. I think that he learned a lot of lessons in that regard from the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The correspondence with Khrushchev that is in the book of JFK’s letters shows them both trying to hold the line against their respective hard-liners. That resulted, for example, in the test ban treaty of 1963, so there were positive aspects to JFK’s role in foreign affairs and nuclear weapons. Christine Grahame referred to MAD, but let us be honest: MAD is a lot better than the first-strike madness that many of JFK’s advisers advocated.
I think that I am more or less out of time. There is a lot of controversy about whether JFK would have got involved in Vietnam. Part of his appeal is that people feel that he might have been able to stop the disaster of the Vietnam war. That is suggested by some evidence, which I have no time to go into. I do not really know the answer to that question.
There are many uncertainties and controversies about JFK, but it is absolutely appropriate to commemorate today a defining moment of the 1960s and a key moment in modern American history.
Given that many members still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Richard Lyle.]
Motion agreed to.
12:51
I thank Richard Lyle for bringing to the chamber the motion to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the assassination of American President John F Kennedy. I was only two years old when President Kennedy was assassinated. I do not remember the feeling in the air after it happened. I do not remember the powerful reaction of the whole world to that earth-shattering moment. I do not even remember how upset my parents and other family must have felt afterwards.
However, we do not have to be able to remember that day to understand the profound impact that President Kennedy had on our world. JFK’s numerous achievements on the domestic and international stages created an image of a man who deserves our utmost respect. One can only imagine how different our world would be if his life had not been cruelly cut short.
JFK had a vision for peace and prosperity the world over. He loved his country and cared deeply and passionately about civil rights, economic prosperity and scientific innovation through space exploration. However, given the nature of the times, much of his focus was on world politics and, in particular, on relations with the Soviet Union.
A reminder of JFK’s humanity is that his presidency experienced many highs and many lows. One of his lows was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion near the beginning of his presidency in 1961. The attack had been largely planned before he took office, so he was briefed after being elected and he approved the plan without having much time to think about it before the invasion was launched. From that experience, Kennedy learned that he would have to develop a better strategy for US and Soviet relations than rushing into armed conflict.
The desire to avoid superpower skirmishes helped JFK to bring the world back from the brink of nuclear war in 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis. He had been involved in that conflict from the beginning. He was able to remain calm, even while the world was preparing to duck and cover and when an American plane was shot down, killing the pilot. The achievement of a resolution through direct negotiation with the USSR reinforced his view that reconciliation was achievable.
Kennedy’s new views were on display in his commencement address on 10 June 1963 at the American University in Washington DC, which was also 50 years ago this year. He said:
“I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace ... not merely peace in our time, but peace in all time.”
He went on to announce his willingness to negotiate with the Soviets
“toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty”,
which resulted in the nuclear test ban treaty later that year. He also declared that he would not conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere as long as other states refrained from testing there as well. As he said, that was an attempt
“to make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on this matter.”
That speech signalled the climax of a dramatic growth in President Kennedy’s character over his short, incomplete presidency, and it showed his aspirations for world peace, which we could all stand to take some time to refocus on.
I would like to take a moment to share with members an excerpt from one of President Kennedy’s final speeches. On 13 November 1963—only days before he was assassinated—the Scottish Black Watch band during its American tour performed for him and more than 1,000 guests on the White House south lawn . JFK shared with the gathered crowd these words on the importance of American and Scottish connections. He said:
“We’re proud to have them here because they are a Scottish regiment, and that green and misty country has sent hundreds of thousands of Scottish men and women to the United States, and they have been among our finest citizens. And we’re proud to have them here, because, speaking personally, the history of Scotland captured me at a very young age. The United States, and in fact all of us, love, I suppose, lost causes, and on occasion the history of Scotland has been a lost cause, but in some ways they have triumphed—perhaps more today than ever before.”
It is no surprise to me that Richard Lyle felt compelled to lodge this motion on the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, and I thank him again for it. President Kennedy felt a deep connection to our great country, just as many of us felt a deep connection to him and his unparalleled leadership. Let us take this anniversary of his death to reflect on the many leadership lessons that we can learn from him and to renew our faith in our cause and our country, as he would have us do.
12:55
Presiding Officer,
“From Dallas Texas, the flash, apparently official: ‘President Kennedy died at 1 pm Central Standard Time.’ 2 o’clock Eastern Standard Time, some 38 minutes ago.”
I think that most people have seen Walter Cronkite’s broadcast, in which he brought to the world the official confirmation of the President’s assassination. I was only four years old and surprisingly I can remember where I was when I heard about Kennedy. It was the following day and I could not understand why my grandparents were so uninvolved in the first episode of “Doctor Who”. I was enthralled. “The President has been killed,” they told me by way of explanation. Yeah, well, who? Whatever.
Then, blow me, because of “That man Kennedy” the first episode had to be repeated the following week and it was a whole fortnight before I could find out what had transpired. That was the perspective of a four-year-old at the time.
Back to Kennedy. I have read plenty about him and his family since, and, despite all that, I remain fairly unimpressed. His father was a fascist-supporting ambassador to the United Kingdom who did all that he could to frustrate any US involvement in disrupting the progress of Hitler and the Nazis. His mother acquiesced in his father’s sanctioning of a lobotomy on her sister. His younger brother abandoned a woman to drown in a car crash. When in office, he and his brother Bobby shared women, took drugs and behaved reprehensibly and in a way that would lead to their being hounded out of office today. They gave J Edgar Hoover all the material that he needed in effect to blackmail the presidency of the United States. His father fixed votes in the presidential election in 1960 that saw JFK elected as President. He initiated America’s substantive involvement in Vietnam. He was responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. It was his successor, Lyndon B Johnson, who did all the heavy lifting on the landmark civil rights legislation. He did not do that just in memory of JFK. LBJ was personally hugely committed to driving through that civil rights legislation and it was LBJ who drove through most of the social legislation that remains at the heart of the US today.
To Kennedy’s credit, he conducted himself heroically when the ship that he was commanding, PT109, was attacked and sunk in the second world war. His single-handed rescuing of members of his crew demonstrated outstanding and immense personal courage. Although there are some who carp over the details and the cold war consequences, he deserves every credit for the way in which he managed the Cuban missile crisis.
Deborah Devonshire, the dowager duchess and the youngest and only surviving Mitford sister, knew him well. JFK’s sister Kathleen, known as Kik, married Deborah’s brother-in-law. Kik and her husband were to die in an air tragedy, the consequence of which was that Deborah’s husband acceded to the dukedom. The Devonshires and the Kennedys stayed in touch. The Devonshires attended the inauguration and JFK, when President, visited Chatsworth to the wide-eyed astonishment of the people who were queuing up to tour the house on that day. In her autobiography, “Wait for Me!”, Deborah Devonshire testifies to JFK’s immense charm, vitality and sense of purpose. For those of us under a certain age, that is something that we never saw, but I defer to her assessment. The Kennedys had charm.
That charm was manifested in Jackie—Jackie, who created Camelot and captured the imagination of the wider world. Like Camelot, though, it was an idealised fiction. In my view, JFK is remembered because his assassination was the first globally televised news event of its kind. In 1963, people in the US and across the world shared the shock and raw emotion of his assassination, of Dallas, of Lee Harvey Oswald, of Jack Ruby, of the flight home to Washington, of Jackie’s blood-spattered suit, of the horse with the reversed boots, of John junior’s salute to his father at the funeral, of the Zapruder film footage. This was a President who represented the youth, glamour and ambition of the post-second world war generation. They mourned the “what might have been” of all that youth, vigour and purpose being cut off so dramatically before their eyes and in his prime, but it cannot disguise that he was flawed and must remain a largely unknown quantity.
13:00
I thank Richard Lyle for bringing the debate to the chamber. The question, “Where were you when Kennedy was assassinated?” is often posed. I should declare that I was not born for another 15 and a half years, almost to the day, so I have no personal memories of the incident. However, it is one of the most pivotal moments of the mid-20th century, and I welcome the chance to reflect on that. A four-minute speech—and indeed a whole member’s debate—probably would not do justice to any life, let alone that of Kennedy, but it is worthwhile for us to have the debate.
Kennedy did not have many links to Scotland, although the motion refers to the incident in which his father, as the Ambassador of the United States to the Court of St James, sent him to meet those US citizens who had been caught up in a German attack on a ship that was sailing for America.
Another connection, which David Torrance highlighted, appears in today’s Daily Record. There is an interview with the last remaining member of the Black Watch pipe band that played at President Kennedy’s funeral, which had been planned so meticulously by his widow Jacqueline Kennedy; the origins of Camelot lay therein.
There is a tendency in assessing the life of President Kennedy to oscillate between hagiography on the one hand, and demonisation—as we just heard from Mr Carlaw, if I may respectfully say so—on the other. The truth is somewhere between the two. It is probably fair to say, for example, that Kennedy did not exhibit exceptional moral qualities in his personal life. However, in his public life, there were many achievements.
I will reflect on one of those achievements, which has been mentioned. In those 13 days in October 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy ignored the more bellicose demands of the American military leadership—epitomised by the head of the American air force, Curtis LeMay—for military action. He charted a different course with more sound counsel from some wiser heads and avoided the mutual assured destruction to which Christine Grahame referred, which would have obliterated the entire world. We should reflect on the fact that Kennedy’s greatest achievements were probably never fulfilled. As the title of Robert Dallek’s biography states, his was “An Unfinished Life”.
The assassination was a pivotal moment and we have to ask what would have happened if Kennedy had lived. That is, of course, necessarily revisionist. The first thing that we can accept is that he would definitely have won the 1964 election. His assessment that Barry Goldwater would be the Republican candidate was correct; Johnson decisively defeated Goldwater, and Kennedy would have done too.
There are indications of how things might have been different. The first is in the commencement address at the American University, to which David Torrance referred and from which I will also quote. In talking about relations with the Soviet Union, Kennedy made the salient point:
“For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
Those are only words, but they were well received in the Soviet Union. Indeed, the speech was made available in its entirety in the Soviet press, which was very unusual at that time. Khrushchev received it well, and it was followed up by the nuclear test ban treaty.
We know that Kennedy’s last executive order—to which Richard Lyle referred—planned the beginning of the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam and that he had established a back channel to Cuba. There was discussion of normalising relations between Cuba and America and we could perhaps have avoided the 50 years of strained relations that have followed since then.
We do not know what would have happened if Kennedy had lived, but I think that there is enough evidence to suggest that a different course would have been charted and there would have been an ambitious agenda for global peace. That was all lost in the street on 22 November 1963 as a result of an assassin’s bullet. Of course, that event is shrouded in mystery, and will—sadly—probably remain so for ever more.
13:05
Richard Lyle was right to say that most American politicians, even to this day, still pray in aid John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and many around the world do so, too. That has led to some of the greatest put-downs in American politics. The one that I remember best was from the 1988 vice-presidential debate, in which the Republican Dan Quayle was holding forth about his experience in office compared to Kennedy’s when he entered the White House. He was up against Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who was quite a bit older than Quayle. Bentsen pulled himself up to his full six foot two, looked over the podium and said:
“I knew Jack Kennedy ... Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
I suspect that many of us would have been pretty proud of that kind of political put-down.
Thirty years ago, I spent some time in an American history class with students of my age discussing presidents. The class teacher asked us to name the president that we would most like to study, to learn about what they had done for their country. Inevitably, many chose Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower or of course Washington. I said Kennedy, for two reasons. First, there was the fascination that members have described with the kind of person that he was—yes, he was flawed but in many other ways he was utterly magisterial—and with what he brought to his politics and his country. We have to remember that that time of change was about the new frontier, the new beginning and replacing the war hero, Eisenhower, who had served his country in many ways. America was changing and Kennedy epitomised that, grabbed it and drove it in a way that I do not think anyone else could have done.
Just five weeks ago, for the first time in my life, I got to Dallas and took my family to Dealey Plaza. We went into the book depository, which is now a museum, went up to that sixth floor and looked out of that window. My son said, “Dad, are those two crosses on the road what I think they are?” They are—they mark the spots where the first bullet hit Kennedy and where the second one hit some yards further down the road. We walked round Dealey Plaza and behind the picket fence. I confess to Malcolm Chisholm that I have read quite a lot of the books and the conspiracy theories, but I still do not know what I believe. However, having been there, I know that it is an awful lot closer when you are there than when you see it on television or in a Kevin Costner movie.
Will the member give way?
Forgive me, but I will just make my speech.
We will never know who killed Kennedy, and I suspect that, even after reading the Warren commission’s report, neither will America.
As members have mentioned, Kennedy brought forward civil rights legislation. I point out to Jackson Carlaw that, in Robert Caro’s incomparable book about LBJ, he describes how the legislation passed through Congress and what Johnson did to get it through, particularly against his party’s wishes, but the point is that it would never have got through had it not been for Kennedy’s death. The sad conclusion that Caro comes to in that important text about American political history is that the only reason why the legislation passed through Congress was because Johnson was able to twist, cajole and make senators and congressmen recognise the importance of the legacy that was the civil rights legislation and therefore rightly get it through the legislative and lawmaking systems.
The other enduring legacy of Kennedy is his speech making. His inaugural speech in 1961 is, for many of us, the defining text on how to write a speech. Believe me, most of us, including me, will never get there but, as an ex-speechwriter, it is nice occasionally to try. Obama does that. His speech in Chicago when he won the election was up there with Kennedy’s, although not quite as good. Many fine men and women will seek to get to the top of the rhetorical Everest that Kennedy created. On the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg address—when we remember that a speech can be two minutes and not 22—it is important that we remember Kennedy’s legacy of the power of speech and words to swing an audience and to move a country. That is possibly his most enduring legacy—the one that the world will never forget. Whether we can remember what happened or, like many of us, we cannot, we will certainly always remember JFK.
Many thanks. I call George Adam, to be followed by James Kennedy—forgive me, I mean James Kelly.
13:10
James Kennedy? I was a bit concerned there, Presiding Officer—I thought that somebody would be following me who I could not compete with.
I thank Richard Lyle for securing the debate. Like Jamie Hepburn, I was not born at the time—I was born in 1969. I often hear stories from my mother and father about where they were at the time.
Why would someone of my generation be inspired by the legacy of John F Kennedy? His Administration was indeed glamorous and it was different. It was younger. Kennedy was the first person to hold office in the White House to have been born in the 20th century. Much has been said about the Camelot legend, too. Kennedy’s Administration actually believed that it could change the world. With that youthfulness came an ideal of trying to change the world and make it a better place.
Tavish Scott is quite right: his words are extremely important. These are the things that inspire us. I saw one quote earlier today:
“The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were.”
Nowadays, we would also say “and women”. When we hear that as a young man or woman, it inspires us, especially if we are a politician, to want to be involved in the process and to try and change the world. Who in my generation would not have been interested? Who would not have wanted to get involved in all that and to see what it was all about? Was it the glamour? Yes, there was glamour involved. The important part, however, is what Kennedy said and many of the things that he did.
When I define myself and my politics, I think about another quote:
“Economic growth without social progress lets the great majority of people remain in poverty, while a privileged few reap the benefits of rising abundance.”
Those are relevant words for debates that we have in this chamber here and now. President Kennedy said them in the 1960s.
In my constituency office, my constituency manager, David McCartney, loves Bobby Kennedy—that is his hero. He sees Bobby as the one he would aspire to be like.
A constituent came up to me and my wife Stacey after the election and said, “Here’s the first lady of Paisley.” She was thinking about Jackie Kennedy, not any other first lady whose husband was in office after that.
In referring to some of the things that John F Kennedy did during his short time in office, people have mentioned the Cuban missile crisis, when the world was on the brink. I have a personal or constituency connection there. Ken McGinley, a campaigning nuclear veteran, was on Christmas Island—he was one of the soldiers who was experimented on by the British Army. He wrote to Mrs Kennedy after that. He was inspired when John F Kennedy had the nuclear test ban brought in a year after the Cuban missile crisis. Ken McGinley wrote because of that and he got a letter and a picture back from Mrs Kennedy, which said that she thanked him for his support and everything else. Those are the things that make a difference to people’s lives. There is a man who is now in the later years of his life and he is still talking about it—that remains a major part of what he did.
Kennedy was a man of change. He believed in changing things. During his time in power, women in the federal Government were paid the same amount of money as men. That was radical in the 1960s. In some places, that is quite radical now in the private sector. That was something that the Kennedy Administration pushed for. Another thing in the 1960s was that only 0.0035 per cent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a Government body, were African American—and they were nearly all chauffeurs. The Kennedy Administration tried to ensure that that part of the population of America could get that opportunity—that they could aspire to be members of the FBI or get involved in other things.
Kennedy’s death came as a great shock to everyone. We only had to look through the Andy Warhol exhibition that we had in the Parliament to see how much of an effect it had on him.
How can we sum up Kennedy’s legacy? Oliver Stone’s “Nixon” movie has a line where Nixon looks at a picture of Kennedy on the wall. This probably never actually happened, but he says that Kennedy reminds people of
“what they want to be”,
whereas he reminds them of
“who they really are.”
That was the difference. Whether he was good, bad or indifferent, because of the difference in the legacy of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, he inspires us to be what we want to be and to achieve everything that we can. That, for me, is what makes the difference.
13:15
I congratulate Richard Lyle on bringing his motion to the chamber. The variety and depth of the speeches show how much Kennedy inspired many of the members in this chamber and the great deal of interest that there is in not just Kennedy’s assassination but his political legacy.
I was only a month old when John F Kennedy was assassinated, so I do not remember the incident. My parents—I am the oldest of seven children—were always very interested in politics, although not actively involved. I was very aware of the virtues and positive aspects of the Kennedy Administration, which has always greatly interested me.
Pupils from Burnside primary are with me today and are sitting in the gallery. Before I came to the chamber to give this speech, one young pupil asked me, “What was it that made John F Kennedy famous?” There are two aspects to the answer. The first is the assassination itself. We will see more of the photographs and images tomorrow, but there is no doubt that the image of an American President driving down a street and being assassinated in front of thousands is one that shocked people at the beginning of the television age, as members such as Christine Grahame have said. People were also shocked that the life of the President, pictured in an iconic image with his wife and young family, had been denied. Such images add to the fascination of the conspiracy theories.
From a political point of view, Jackson Carlaw did the debate a service by bringing an alternative critique to the table. Although I did not agree with much of it, he was right to point out that perhaps all that glisters is not gold.
I would say two things about Kennedy. In yesterday’s debate on same-sex marriage, a lot of people spoke about how the world has moved on. I was talking to my 13-year-old daughter Erin recently about a project that she was doing on America. We talked about the challenges that black and Negro people faced in America: they were not allowed to ride on certain buses; there was segregation; and people were murdered and beaten up. Kennedy took a stand against all that and moved things on. Perhaps if he had not done that, and if Lyndon Johnson had not carried that work on, we would not have got Barack Obama as President in 2008. Kennedy did the world a real service.
Kennedy also showed real leadership during the Cuban missile crisis. If people read up on what happened at that time, they will see that there is no doubt that we were on the verge of world war three. He was right to stand firm and provide leadership at that time.
The real lesson for me is that politics matters. I return again to yesterday’s meeting of the Parliament, when we had tributes to Helen Eadie. Sadly, that was the third occasion in recent months when we have had to pay such tributes; Brian Adam and David McLetchie also died recently. Although we have different views and visions, the thing that brings everyone in this chamber together is that we are in this because politics matters.
What John F Kennedy achieved in his life and political career shows that we can make a difference in politics. That is something that all politicians should carry forward in their political careers.
Well done. I call Willie Coffey, after whom we will move to the minister’s closing speech.
13:19
I join colleagues in thanking Dick Lyle for bringing the motion on President Kennedy to the debating chamber and for providing the Scottish Parliament with an opportunity to remember one of the most influential and charismatic political leaders the world has ever known.
Those of us who were around at the time remember where we were at the moment of the assassination. Even though I was five, I still recall the moment vividly; when the newsflash came on the TV, I was in the house with my mother, sitting at the fireplace. I knew something awful had happened but I was not sure exactly what it was. I recall being incredibly saddened by my mother’s reaction to the news and knew that what had happened was important. Fifty years on almost to the day, I am privileged to be able to stand here in our Parliament and give something back to honour the memory of a man who changed the world.
The cold war between the west and the Soviet Union was probably at its coldest during Mr Kennedy’s presidency, and the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 would probably have finished the careers of lesser Presidents than JFK. Yet he prevailed, won the support of the American public and successfully faced down Khrushchev during the Cuban nuclear missile crisis of 1962, succeeding in persuading the Soviets to dismantle their nuclear capability there in return for a reciprocal agreement from the Americans in Italy and Turkey and a promise not to invade Cuba. Diplomacy certainly averted disaster for the world.
At that time, America was a racially divided country and the civil rights movement was struggling to gain momentum. President Kennedy must have watched in horror the events in May 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama when state-sponsored brutality put down a civil rights event led by Martin Luther King, who was to be assassinated himself only five years after the President. Perhaps JFK could have done more earlier to rid America of apartheid, but his executive orders prohibiting racial discrimination laid the groundwork for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In many ways, the Kennedy Administration was years ahead of its time. As my colleague Dick Lyle has pointed out, in 1961 JFK established the Peace Corps, as a result of which US volunteers worked in third world countries to build roads and hospitals and educate their citizens. He promoted his new frontier programme, promising federal funding for education, medical care for the elderly, economic aid to rural regions and Government intervention to halt the recession of the time. He also declared to an unsuspecting world that America would put a man on the moon before the end of the decade, which of course happened in 1969. Averting a nuclear world war three while planning to expand the scientific achievements of mankind beyond our dreams were pretty impressive achievements in his all-too-short term in office.
Presiding Officer, you would expect us to find some story connecting Jack Kennedy to Scotland. As Jamie Hepburn made clear in his speech, in 1939, as a 22-year-old, President Kennedy made his first public speech in what I know as the Baird hall of residence in Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow, after the Germans had torpedoed the Athenia passenger ship, killing 28 Americans. Glasgow’s reaction to that incident and the way in which its people looked after and cared for all who survived it, particularly the American citizens, must have left a hugely positive impression on the young Mr Kennedy and might well have influenced him in his later years as President. We would like to hope that it did.
I feel privileged to be standing here talking about President John F Kennedy and the important legacy that he left us, after such a short term of office. He touched the hearts and minds not only of the American people but of people throughout the world, including in Scotland. I might have been only five when he was taken from us but he certainly made an impression on my life. He said
“A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on.”
The ideas and vision of John F Kennedy certainly live on and I think that the world is a better place because of him.
13:23
I, too, congratulate Richard Lyle on securing the debate. Although I was not born when President Kennedy died, I have felt the impact of his life throughout my own, and this very interesting and poignant debate has made it clear that 22 November 1963—the day on which President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas—will forever be marked as a pivotal moment in world history. He was human and had flaws but he was also a leader who provided hope, which is the most precious currency for any political leader.
I want to touch briefly on a couple of examples of JFK’s vision and his impact on Scotland and the world, because that vision is what makes his death as tragic today as it was 50 years ago. In doing so, I want to recognise and celebrate the strong bonds of friendship between Scotland and the US. Indeed, on this sad anniversary, we join our American friends in honouring the memory of their young President and a legacy that lives on to this day.
JFK was as famous for his Irish roots and Boston brogue as he was for being a product of the American dream. However, as the motion states, it was here in Scotland that the 22-year-old son of the US ambassador to the UK first demonstrated his potential as a politician and leader. He made his first public speech on behalf of the US Government when he addressed the American survivors of the German U-boat attack on and sinking of the passenger ship Athenia, who were being cared for in Glasgow—as we have just heard from Willie Coffey.
As US President, JFK had the vision to recognise the perils of nuclear weapons, as a number of members have said. In recognising the threat, which is as profound today as it was following the Cuban missile crisis, both he and Khrushchev realised that it was insane that the power to spark nuclear war should be controlled by two individuals. They privately began to exchange letters that reopened their earlier dialogue on the banning of nuclear testing. That was followed by the limited nuclear test ban treaty, which was signed on 5 August 1963 in Moscow, one day before the 18th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. It took Kennedy two months to convince the US public and the Senate to support the treaty in a demonstration of how strongly resolute he was on doing something about the peril of nuclear weapons.
As US President, JFK had the vision to imagine a society in which people of all races and religions were treated equally. When he was elected in 1960, civil rights were a key issue in the US and there were high expectations of the new President. Reluctant to lose support among the southern states, having only narrowly won the election and barely holding control in Congress, instead of trying to pass legislation Kennedy appointed a large number of African Americans to high-level positions and worked to strengthen the Civil Rights Commission.
On 11 June 1963, the President addressed the nation, promising to introduce major civil rights legislation following the attempt by the then governor of Alabama to block two black students from entering the University of Alabama. When I was in the US this summer, I had the privilege of meeting the current mayor of Alabama as part of this year’s civil rights anniversary celebrations. In 1963, not long after that address by JFK, 200,000 Americans gathered for the march on Washington when Martin Luther King delivered his momentous “I have a dream” speech. The march helped a comprehensive civil rights bill to clear several hurdles in Congress and win endorsement from both House and Senate Republican leaders. Unfortunately, Kennedy was assassinated on 22 November 1963, before the bill could be passed. Nevertheless, as we have heard, President Johnson was able to sign the bill into law as a tribute to his fallen predecessor.
Perhaps Kennedy’s most ambitious vision was to commit to putting a man on the moon. In 1961, the Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space, creating the impression among Americans that the US was falling behind in the space race. Kennedy understood that to restore the faith of Americans, the US Government would have not just to match, but to surpass the Soviets. In a speech on 25 May 1961, before a joint session of Congress, Kennedy called for an investment of billions of dollars to achieve the goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Sceptics questioned the ability of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to deliver that but, as we all know, on 20 July 1969 the crew of Apollo 11 realised President Kennedy’s dream—the first spaceflight to land humans on the moon. My first memory of television was watching that event. It was a tremendous point in history, and its impact is a tribute to the work of JFK.
As Tavish Scott said, as well as for his vision we remember Kennedy for his powerful oratory and his ability to capture the mood of the moment. One of the finest examples of that came a few months before his death. During a visit to West Berlin, on 26 June 1963, amid the tensions of the cold war, Kennedy spoke about the United States’ support for West Germany some 22 months after the Soviet-backed East Germans had erected the Berlin wall. Although his message was aimed as much at the Soviets as at the people of West Berlin, it is best remembered for his compelling statement of empathy: “Ich bin ein Berliner”. In that simple phrase, spoken in their mother tongue, Kennedy conveyed powerfully how the United States would stand with the people of West Berlin against oppression.
In closing, I want to reflect on and use some other statements made by JFK. In 1962, Kennedy ignored advice from key advisers and tried to pass a social security measure on medical care for workers over 65. In a message to Congress in February 1962, he said:
“For one true measure of a nation is its success in fulfilling the promise of a better life for each of its members. Let this be the measure of our nation.”
Addressing the Irish Parliament in Dublin on 28 June 1963, President Kennedy said of Ireland:
“the achievement of nationhood is not an end but a beginning ... For self-determination can no longer mean isolation; and the achievement of national independence today means withdrawal from the old status only to return to the world scene with a new one.”
Finally, reflecting the remarks made by James Kelly in what I thought was a fitting and very good speech, I want to end with a quote that is perhaps most appropriate for this place and this time:
“So, let us not be blind to our differences—but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved.”
This has been an excellent debate with excellent speeches and has been a very fitting way to mark the memory of a man who made such an impact on the world.
I agree. I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2 o’clock.
13:31
Meeting suspended.
14:00
On resuming—