Not suffering from an oversupply of shyness when it comes to expressing an opinion, I generate a fair degree of feedback from readers, from columns such as this and comments on social media. Some of this can be expressed in language that would make a brothel-going sailor blush, but it is now acknowledged that that is sadly just a consequence of being in the world of politics.
Others will comment in less colourful terms, but not simply disagree with my opinions, but question my right to express them at all. This approach is evident in discussions around gender issues, where any expression of view that does not enthusiastically endorse the policy of self-identification, associated most closely with the former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, is denounced as “transphobic.”
Worse still, I am told that no-one holding the opinions that I do should be entitled to occupy any position in public life, or be allowed a platform to express them. The obvious riposte to such comments is to point out that my views on these matters are far more in tune with the mainstream of Scottish public opinion than those of my critics. Nevertheless, the notion that because someone disagrees with my views I should not be permitted to express them is a relatively new, and worrying, development.
A new strain of censoriousness has emerged in Scotland, intended to silence contrary opinions, even popular ones. Nowhere has this trend been more evident than in the events of just the last few weeks, where a series of episodes have illustrated the rise of this new mood of censorship.
We see this in the decision by the Edinburgh International Book Festival not to feature any books written by gender critical feminists, even though the book “The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht” has been high on the bestseller lists for the last year. It seems astonishing that not one of its co-authors was deemed worthy of a slot at the book festival, even as part of a discussion panel. The festival’s Chief Executive, Jenny Niven, defended this decision on the grounds that the issue of gender was deemed too divisive to be featured, even though Sturgeon herself, architect of the self-ID policy, has a place on the programme.
The same book was the subject of a parallel controversy at the National Library of Scotland, when despite receiving a high number of nominations to feature in an exhibition it was not selected because of concerns which were raised by the staff’s LGBT network. The book’s co-editors Lucy Hunter Blackburn, and my fellow Scotsman columnist Susan Dalgety, wrote to the National Librarian to raise their concerns about its exclusion, highlighting the proper role of the library as a place where ideas, debate and discussion take place. “Rather than treat this book as a book, you have allowed it to be treated as a dangerous object, not safe for public display in Scotland’s national library”, they stated.
Banning books, and refusing to allow platforms for their authors to discuss them, carry some horrible historical resonances. Is it only a matter of time before book-banning becomes book-burning?
The third, and perhaps most egregious, example of the new censorship came in the case of the Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, who spoke at a fringe event at the Summerhall Arts Venue. Forbes is a political opponent of mine, and I would disagree with many of her views, but she is one of the country’s most senior politicians and if anyone should have a platform to be interrogated it is surely someone like her.
And yet, the venue issued an apology for her appearance, even providing a “safe room” for staff who might be “terrified” of her presence.
Any reasonable person would surely reach the conclusion that a staff member terrified of the 5’2” female Highlander should probably be seeking a career elsewhere. It is, of course, Forbes’ socially conservative views, including her opposition to gender self-ID, that is deemed so controversial that the venue initially said that she would not be invited to speak at future events.
Since then, such was the backlash, that Summerhall appear to have done a U-turn, with the Chief Executive Sam Gough saying that no-one is banned from appearing at the venue, although it remains to be seen whether or not this promise will be adhered to in future.
Summerhall Arts is a private institution and who they decide to invite or not to speak on their premises would largely be a matter for them, were it not for the fact that the quango Creative Scotland handed them over £600,000 in taxpayers’ money as a grant in January. It is entirely unacceptable that public funds are being given to a body actively involved in the suppression of anyone’s free speech, least of all that of one of Scotland’s most senior figures in government.
When it comes to the National Library, that is a public body and therefore accountable to Parliament and to the broader Scottish public for its actions. I hope that when Holyrood returns from its Recess in a fortnight’s time that the Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee will agree to look at the use of public funds to support bodies such as the National Library, and the payment of grants to third party organisations, to ensure that freedom of speech is upheld.
Scotland once prided itself as a country of open debate, where radical ideas could be put forward and confronted. That was the whole basis of the Scottish Enlightenment, still recognised throughout the world as a period in which the orthodoxies of a previous age were being challenged.
We need to rediscover that spirit today, both at the Edinburgh Festivals, and throughout Scotland. We will be a culturally richer, more open and more diverse society as a result. So it is time for those who would restrict free speech to be told to 'wheesht.'
Murdo's opinion column was printed in The Scotsman on August 20,2025.
