Letters: Harvie was simply feeding his own egotism with his remarks

IT was with regret that I read of Patrick Harvie’s so-called contribution to the tributes to the late Queen (“Green minister Patrick Harvie tells new monarch life is not all about ‘status or title’”, September 13).

It was, however, without surprise, as he continues to misuse his position in the Parliament – a position granted not through electoral success but through the SNP’s perceived need to bolster its position.

I suggest that Mr Harvie reflects that our nation, almost unanimously (and irrespective of political viewpoint), wishes to pay tribute to the Queen’s life of service, constancy and dedication; and it has nothing but disdain for individuals like him who will use any opportunity to feed their own egotism.

READ MORE: Our cartoonist Steven Camley’s take on Patrick Harvie

Perhaps he should reflect on his jibe delivered during Holyrood’s tribute to the late Duke of Edinburgh (“extreme wealth, privilege and status”) and consider that he, more than most, is privileged to have the opportunity to air his minority views in Parliament.

In reply to his veiled implication regarding the number of lives the late Queen touched, perhaps he might again reflect how many will queue overnight to see him lying in state.

I am not a royalist as such but do have the utmost respect for what the Queen contributed.

I also have to admit that my love of creation and a desire to see good stewardship of our planet has been encouraged more by royalty – especially King Charles III – than anything that has come out of the Green Party.

James Watson, Dunbar, East Lothian.

Patrick Harvie’s speech at Holyrood offering condolance to King Charles


I WAS very impressed with the grace and dignity expressed by most of the party leaders during their tributes to the Queen Elizabeth at Holyrood in the presence of King Charles and The Queen Consort.

The exception was the joint leader of the Green Party, Patrick Harvie.

I was appalled that this Nicola Sturgeon-appointed minister, and arch-republican, was afforded a platform from which to deliver his views.

Apart from it being the totally inappropriate moment for this diatribe, his complete lack of empathy for the king was palpable.

In my view the Presiding Officer, Alison Johnstone, a former Green Party MSP, should have known what to expect from Mr Harvie and called upon Canadian-born Lorna Slater, his co-leader, for a more empathetic response.

In this way, amongst the lasting words ringing in the king’s ears, before his reply to the Assembly as we enter the Carolean Era, were not those of an anti-Monarchist.

God Save the King !

Christopher H Jones, Giffnock.

Dressing-down for the royals

I WONDER how many people feel, as I do, disappointed that our new king, Princess Anne and Prince Edward opted for military uniforms for the walk following the cortege to St Giles’ Cathedral, eschewing the smart and reverential mourning clothing which they had adopted earlier.

This would have avoided an awkward situation as the discredited Prince Andrew, who did see active service, was not allowed to wear a uniform, whilst his brother, Edward did, having only served a few months with the Royal Marines.

The army supported him during his three years of university education on the understanding that he would commit to army service.

The choice of mourning clothes rather than uniforms would have demonstrated a modern and changing monarchy which many see as necessary if it is to survive.

David G Will, Milngavie.


WHETHER a monarchist, or not, it is right that our head of state should receive proper obsequies. I, however, now think that our BBC is turning into the British State Broadcasting Corporation. That should worry all of us.

Kenneth T MacDonald, Kilmarnock.


CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy facilitates Christian practice. To make the best of its relative political powerlessness, monarchs must embrace the opportunity to serve in order to contribute positively to national well-being. Queen Elizabeth understood this well.

Her personal Christianity allowed her to be a servant Queen. She was by spiritual nature and temperament a follower of Jesus Christ.

The death of Queen Elizabeth and the succession of King Charles have been overtly Christian in character. People might think that the United Kingdom is still a Christian nation. We are not. The new atheists are quietened for the moment.

Queen Elizabeth was able to keep the balance between her personal piety and conviction and her regal duty to be inclusive. Charles seeks to inherit that compromise.

Her death and his succession have seen Christianity restored to the centre of national conversation.

Do the people of these islands want to return to Christianity? Or have they simply admired Queen Elizabeth for being what they themselves do not want to be or are unable to be?

Even the most stubborn might concede that there is a kind providence in the manner of Queen Elizabeth’s passing. Should it not be so? Working until 96 years of age and up until 48 hours before a quick and relatively easy passage from this life? Eyes of faith will see it. But it is ancient wisdom.

Even King Charles III’s succession is accounted for. “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his faithful servants. Truly I am your servant, Lord; I serve you just as my mother did; you have freed me from my chains” (Psalm 116: 15–16)

Rev Dr Robert Anderson, Dundonald.


REGARDING the letter from your regular correspondent, Dr Gerald Edwards (September 13), am I to take it that he believes that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries had no right to retain the UK monarch as their head of state on gaining their independence?

Given the fact that it was King James of Scotland who inherited the English throne in 1603 to create the Union of the Crowns, it seems to me that if the Union of the Parliaments were to be dissolved, and this necessitated the end of the Union of the Crowns, then Scotland has a better case for retaining the reigning monarch than England.

Des McGhee, Milngavie.


IF I go to Bavaria and prance about in lederhosen the locals would probably consider me patronising if my best attempt to speak their language is to speak English with a comedy German accent.

Charles Windsor has really got no business turning up at our Parliament and claiming some sort of affinity with Scotland. This sham was laid bare by his selective reference to Burns.

The honest man tho e’er sae puir, is king o’ men and we need bow to no man because of his inherited wealth and privilege.

It takes more than parading about in the kilt to make him one of us. Let’s see him fully embrace our culture and set aside the titles he bestowed on his son and all the tinsel show that his family is so fond of; the man o’ independent mind looks and laughs at a’ that.

His pretence at being some kind of Scot is nothing more than a tool to get us Scots to think of ourselves as British. Guid faith we maunna fa’ that!

Ni Holmes, St Andrews.


IN 1952 I was seconded to the Government of Southern Rhodesia. On the day of the king’s death I was having dinner in the Whitehall Hotel, Salisbury, when the head waiter, an Ndebele, approached the table and said “We have just received news that ‘The Great Branch Has Broken’”. It was his way of saying that King George had died. To this day I can still visualise the room and remember the reaction of those around the table. A lasting memory.

Robert T.R. Hailstones, Millport, Isle of Cumbrae.


WHILE many different organisations have been heavily involved in Scotland’s mourning for the Queen, I feel that great credit is due to Police Scotland for the impeccable way in which thousands of officers have performed their duties with respect, humility, and cheerful helpfulness.

Brian Watt, Edinburgh.

Leave a Comment