Notebook
Mrs Thatcher came over rather well from the Falklands (happy in the knowledge that Lord Franks had exonerat- ed her over last year's invasion by Argen- tina). It seems a little hypocritical of MPs to complain that she was electioneering. Of course our eyes are usually fixed on remote heights of truth and beauty but none of us is above taking an occasional squint at the electorate. In any event I can hardly believe many votes will be won or lost by the visit, come October. The visit may have been diplomatically frowned upon but I doubt if that matters much. What alarms me is that it will fuel the self-satisfaction in which the British establishment and press have been cloaked since the second world war. I do not believe that the Falklands expedition was as great a victory as Waterloo and Trafalgar rolled into one. It was' the culmination of blunders. So was the second world war. Over that, so far from patting ourselves on the back about our finest hour, we should hang our heads in shame that Britain and France supported by Poland, Belgium and Holland could not stand up to Germany. Once America entered the war it would have taken a genius to lose it. Our part was secondary and while playing it we acquired many bad habits such as the proliferation of staffs and quangos, which are with us today. However, it is only civil to welcome the Prime Minister back from a long voyage and congratulate Mr Thatcher on looking more like John Wells every week.
Ilately paid a visit to Holland, an agreeable and eccentric country. It is Primarily eccentric because it is more or less below sea level. But the Amsterdam brothels are surely another eccentricity. The northern Dutch share the same Calvinist tradition with the southern Scots. Semi- naked prostitutes in the windows of George Street, Edinburgh, would surely raise a few eyebrows. Perhaps it is the Scots who are out of step. But Amsterdam flourished in the swinging Sixties. Its provos had the ad- mirable idea of leaving bicycles around for everyone to use. The Sixties are much Maligned. Rock and Roll, Mary Quant, the King's Road, Carnaby Street and mini- skirts were immediately enjoyable. The Six- ties were economical of resources, spon- taneous and uninterested in prestige. They were the heyday of the art schools and Possibly of British art. I do not believe that they were exclusively responsible for violence, drugs, abortion and rape. On the contrary they were, compared with the suc- ceeding decades, rather gentle; boys and
girls treated each other rather well. I do not believe exhibiting women for commercial gain was part of their ethos. It may be very frank and open but I am surprised that Women's Lib, which in its better aspects got a boost in the Sixties; has not more to say about it.
The Government have raised, my hackles by allowing the Charterhouse bid for Anderson Strathclyde to go forward. I don't suppose that will worry them much. But I suspect a lot of other people in Scotland felt the same. Because the last government introduced two appalling devolution Bills which ended in fiasco, that does not mean that Scottish national feeling is dead. Unless the Government have aban- doned hope of all votes north of the Trent they should be more sensitive to ex-London Britain. To me the personal accusations against Lord Cockfield are, apart from be- ing ludicrous, beside the point. The point is that for 60 years Scotland has seen its talent drained off. Decisions for it are made out- side Scotland. It has become a peasant economy. To try to reassure us by saying that the registered office of Anderson Strathclyde will remain in Glasgow is laughable. The effect of the reduction of Scotland to colonial status is perfectly il- lustrated by the decision that the appeal against the Minister must be heard by English judges.
T was told by a Dutch politician that the 1 Dutch dislike confrontation. I am myself in favour of a rational dialectic especially if it is between sincerely differing views of a common good. But in Britain confronta- tion seems too often to feed on itself. Some of the blame for this must lie with television and the press. Television demands a spec- tacle — preferably a violent spectacle. If there is no titillating spectacle with at least the promise of anger and blood — then lit- tle coverage. So British politics and worse still British industry must be, if we believe the media, conducted as a species of war- fare. Political leaders, the spokesmen for management and the trade unions cannot afford to be seen to agree. Even when the common good or even the common in- terests of the participants clearly demand a common effort co-operation doesn't get much of a cheer. Left to themselves the British, or at least the English and the Norse remnants in the far north, get along rather well together. But too many of them in charge of our politics, industry and newspapers seem unhappy unless there is a row — even if it is only about some trivial matter. Another factor making for the pet- tish and abrasive conduct of our affairs is the obligation which the bureaucracy of every institution feels to demand 'more' of everything. These self-interested demands are couched in absurdly inflated language — 'murder', 'vicious attack', 'obscene' etc. The Dutch seem to think that this is un- necessary. What about, as a start, sug- gesting that the BBC and ITV enter a self-. denying pact not to show violence, demonstrations, clowning, but to give the participants every opportunity to put their case on radio? The sort of society which can sustain a free democracy should promote argument and the spoken word above spec- tacles. Government by demonstration can- not be a good way to carry on our affairs.
Recent appointments and their aftermath have given rise to some questioning. But the vast patronage network goes on un- questioned. I am not convinced that civil servants, if they have more to contribute after the age of 60, as no doubt some of them have, should not offer it to the civil service. I may cause annoyance to two friends of mine and each other by con- trasting their cases. But contemplate Sir William Rees-Mogg and Alastair Hether- ington. Both were editors of distinction on great papers. Both are highly civilised and able men. Sir William gets a knighthood and is made Chairman of the Arts Council, and incidentally a director of GEC. Alastair gets a professorship at Stirling. A pro- fessorship at Stirling is an honour but not a government or public honour. I don't sup- pose Alastair wants a knighthood but I wonder if he was offered one? Incidentally, both he and William would make admirable life peers if they were so inclined. If artistic qualifications have any relevance to the job of running the Arts Council I would have thought Alastair's are rather better than William's. It seems to me that we should either reduce the patronage which the Government and civil service control or find some new way of dispensing it — or both.
Jo Grimond
Previous page
