| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside): I draw my hon. Friend's attention to pipe bands, which regularly appear on school premises throughout the United Kingdom. An essential part of a pipe band's proper costume or outfit--highland dress--is the skean-dhu. I wear it on school premises and in Parliament.
Mr. Merchant: No doubt my hon. Friend also wears it in the street from time to time. I feel sure, however, that he would not fall foul of the main part of the Bill, even though there is no specific exemption for national costume in the rest of the Bill.
I believe that Scottish pipe bands would be absolutely and fully covered by parts of the Bill other than subsection (4)(d). For example, they would be covered by subsection (3), because they would be able to prove that they had "good reason" for wearing a national costume, including the skean-dhu. If not, they would be able to illustrate that the full costume was being worn for "educational purposes". Pipe bands would not walk on to school premises out of a whim. No doubt they would have been invited. There would be a good educational reason for their being on the premises. They would probably not be able to defend themselves for "religious reasons", even though I know that many Scotsmen--especially highlanders--feel extremely strongly about their national costume.
I return to the three questions that I have been attempting to pose for the past five minutes. First, are there relevant examples that show the absolute necessity of subsection (4)(d)? I question that. Secondly, if people are wearing national costumes at school, why is that? If there is a good educational reason, that is fine. But are we really saying that we want to encourage those attending school to wear an array of national costumes from different parts of the world? That would be inadvisable in itself. Thirdly, is it always necessary to carry a weapon as part of a national costume? Given the various degrees to which I have been pressed over the past few minutes, I exclude the Scots.
There have been many precedents created for the display of national costumes. There have been some exemptions for usual practice in occupations that require a uniform to be worn. In those instances, there has nearly always been a specific reason. For example, railway conductors have long been allowed, if they are genuine Sikhs, to wear the required items to which I have referred. That exemption has not been extended to people who happen, on a whim, to wish to wear a national costume. We do not see bus conductors wearing Dutch clogs, for example, or Lederhosen. It would be rather absurd if they were allowed to do so. A schoolteacher would not be especially well thought of if he suddenly took to arriving at school and conducting lessons dressed in Lederhosen and wearing Dutch clogs, not necessarily together. There is a clear distinction between national costume and clothes that are part of religious observance.
There will of course be exceptions, and no doubt a school might wish, as part of its curriculum, to show national costume. A school might have a day on which people would be encouraged to dress in national costume as part of a history lesson or for cultural studies, and that would be covered under "legitimate educational purposes". In the vast majority of cases, however, the legislation would not even begin to apply because there would be no likelihood of sharp instruments being carried.
I should like, finally, to refer to Scotland and to the Scots, although my remarks have been anticipated to some extent. I stress that I deliberately did not table an amendment to the latter part of the Bill, which refers to Scottish law, because I take seriously the matter of Scottish national costume. I accept that national costume is regarded differently in Scotland, and I can think of no reason why it should not be so regarded under the law.
Scottish costume requires the carrying of the skean-dhu, which might be ruled, in other circumstances, as contrary to the Bill--under clause 4 or elsewhere--because it is of course a sharp and pointed instrument. I do not have a great deal of experience of how sharp and pointed it is--perhaps luckily. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) will no doubt be able to enlighten us on that point.
My hon. Friend might also be able to explain why it is necessary to carry the skean-dhu as part of national costume. Sometimes I wonder whether it is entirely necessary, or whether it might be more sensitive for a Scotsman visiting a school not to include it as part of his national dress. I am willing to be corrected on that point if I can be assured that wearing a skean-dhu is absolutely essential, and that a Scotsman would feel naked without that part of his dress.
I think that a Scotsman would still find that there was little doubt that he would be able to defend himself fully against any absurd charge that might be attempted under the Bill, either under subsection (4)(d) or under any of the other clauses to which I have referred. Therefore, Scotsmen, however sensitive they may be about it, need not feel threatened in any sense by my amendment.
Mr. Bill Walker:
I shall speak against this amendment, which will not surprise the House, and take up the challenge thrown at me by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). Perhaps he will now be able to understand why we Scots regularly have to remind everyone that it was our king who came down to sit on the Union throne and why, from time to time, we have to remind everyone that the Union between Scotland and England was voluntary. There may have been an element of bribery involved in it, but the Union was made by voluntary agreement.
In forging that Union, the Scots brought to the United Kingdom a certain colour and a certain heroism--which was found on battlefields, to the great advantage of the Union. Part of that Scottish tradition is the wearing of highland dress. I underline the fact that we are talking about highland dress, which is not worn by all Scots.
Mr. Walker:
Yes, it is a pity.
One can, therefore, recognise that there is a great danger of alienating a part of a minority in the United Kingdom. We live in a world in which minority interests have to be considered with great care; we constantly see people introducing legislation to protect minorities. I am a minority of a minority in many ways, because not only am I a highland Scot but I am a highland Scottish Conservative Scot, and we really are a minority.
I am one of the few Scots who come to the House fairly regularly wearing my national dress. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that I always wear it in matters in which the scouts have an interest because scouts throughout Scotland regularly wear highland dress.
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham):
Will my hon. Friend clarify something for me? I understood from books of Scottish etiquette that the kilt should never be worn below the highland line.
Mr. Walker:
That was probably written by a Campbell. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the Scots were on both sides at Culloden. As is often the way with the Scots, they hedged their bets--which was reason for sending our king down to sit on the throne. The truth is that the Scots always wear the appropriate dress when facing the enemy.
Mr. David Nicholson:
I hate to spoil my hon. Friend's paean in support of the highlanders, but is not it true that at Culloden there were more Scots in the Duke of Cumberland's army than in the prince's army?
Mr. Walker:
That was why the king's army won. I do not know why anyone should be surprised about that. That was the most astonishing intervention. The king's army would not have won if there had not been more Scots on Cumberland's side. So that there is no doubt on this matter, I should tell my hon. Friend that my mother's side was on the king's side and my father's side was on the losing side. Such situations were not uncommon in the highlands and among those who married lowlanders.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)--it is a very important point--that the highland regiments, until well into the second world war, went into battle wearing the kilt, as they did in the first world war and in all earlier campaigns. I ask him: how can anyone possibly suggest that it was not proper to be wearing the kilt south of wherever? As I recall, most campaigns were fought far south of wherever. Scots all over the world, and particularly in England, demonstrate at every opportunity the fact that we reached an agreement on the Union, of which we are proud to be part.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham properly asked whether it would be right to remove the skean-dhu--the weapon with which he is concerned. The skean-dhu should be worn in the stocking and should not be unsheathed in public. I have occasionally shown my grandfather's skean-dhu, which is the one that I wear. He wore it during the Boer war campaign, the first world war in Mesopotamia and in two tours in India, when he was in the Black Watch.
We wear the skean-dhus because they are much more than symbols. They reflect family inheritance and tradition, and they cannot easily be replaced. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham suggests that it should not be worn and asks whether one would feel naked without it. If one were not to wear it, one would feel that one was not continuing the traditions that make us what we are--beautifully different, yet part of this collective whole called the United Kingdom.
Given the opportunity, I shall in a later debate deal with the question of this beautiful United Kingdom of which I am proud to be part. I am proud to be part of it because
I am in a minority of a minority. I am a highland Conservative Scot, which is why I have to demonstrate clearly to the vast majority who are not of my background that we Scots have contributed massively to the Union.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |