Scottish Studies debate on the Parliament Channel

This morning, despite the sunny weather, I watched the Scottish Studies debate on the Parliament Channel.

I only meant to watch a little, while I had a cup of tea, but I ended up watching over an hour.

It seemed a classic Orwellian exercise ("He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future").

The language used by the SNP is interesting.  They maintain a headline commitment to mutliculturalism and diversity, while at the same time appearing to include coded messages that imply the opposite.  The Labour MSPs didn't really know how to respond to this (there was no meaningful contribution from the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats).

For instance, MSP Rob Gibson loudly proclaimed "Our proudly mongrel nation" but did so with a smirk, as if it was just a tool he was using.

MSP John Finnie talked about "the sacrifice of the indigenous people at Culloden".  Later he talked about "the British suppression of the natives of Skye".  This use of emotive and tendentious language rather undermined the claims the SNP were making that the new "Scottish Studies" would be impartial. 

MSP Paul Wheelhouse seemed to feel an obligation to mention his "Scottish ancestry".  But if Scottish people are "proudly mongrel" how can they have a coherent ancestry?  No-one seemed to notice this inconsistency.

The summing up by Education Minister Michael Russell included a rabble-rousing list of "let's talk about..." (but he didn't talk about any of the things he listed).  He also made frequent references to a number of fictional works (novels and films), which seemed to be a flimsy intellectual basis on which to base an education policy.  His closing sentence, shouted to the assembly, was "Let's show enthusiasm for where we came from" - but if they are "proudly mongrel" surely they do not come from any one place?