Get SR free in your inbox twice a week
Click here
The banner
Winter skyline,
St Andrews
Photograph by
Islay McLeod
Since SR does not accept advertising or sponsorship of any kind, and since the support it receives from its publisher (the Institute of Contemporary Scotland) is limited, SR depends on the generosity of individual supporters through the Friends’ appeal. The standard donation is £30, but we can handle much larger amounts. To become a Friend, and help to ensure that SR goes on flourishing
Click here
For a list of the current Friends of the Scottish Review, click here
For a list of the current Friends of the Scottish Review, click here
For a list of the current Friends of the Scottish Review, click here
For a list of the current Friends of the Scottish Review, click here
The family picnic. Photograph by Islay McLeod
It was reported recently that Labour would like the government to introduce legal limits on the sugar, salt and fat content in food. Judging by its reaction, it would appear that the government is not exactly hostile to this idea.
Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham claimed that current voluntary agreements with the food industry were ‘not working’ and that the obesity problem was ‘worsening’, while health secretary Jeremy Hunt said: ‘This is not a problem we can just wish away. If we don’t meet our targets and continue to make the progress that we have to make, then we would consider legislation’.
The comments made by these two politicians contain several telling phrases. Mr Burnham said that the ‘time has come for new thinking’ particularly when it comes to foods aimed at children. He said: ‘I think parents need more help to make healthier choices for their children’. I’m not sure how Mr Burnham defines ‘help’, but I know now that he spells it l-e-g-i-s-l-a-t-i-o-n. Imposing further limits on food manufacturers does not ‘help’ parents; it merely imposes more conditions on food manufacturers. Legislation, in this case, can only be defined as ‘helpful’ if you think that it is your responsibility to remove choices from people who are unable to act rationally and who might otherwise damage themselves. Legislation only counts as help if you believe that people are not capable of helping themselves, not capable of making informed decisions in their own interests.
Most of us would concede that it would be appropriate for a parent to remove the ‘choice’ of a 10-year-old child to have unlimited internet access, unlimited fast food or unlimited late-night leisure time during school term, because the parent is best placed to decide what is and what isn’t good for the child. But that is not the kind of relationship that should prevail between the state and the citizen. The very notion of legislating to ‘help’ people make more ‘responsible’ choices – that is, the choices you want them to make – is a perfect illustration of how the political class view those they are elected to represent.
It simply does not occur to our politicians that most parents are capable of saying: ‘No Johnny, you can’t have another triple-decker bacon cheeseburger with extra chunky fries’. They’d much rather introduce a law that ‘helps’ those hapless parents avoid the awkwardness of having to make an actual decision, like perhaps having to say ‘no’ to their child.
Sadly, it seems that a lot of folk have come to accept that government legislation can somehow take the place of common sense. They argue that legislation is required because the food industry can’t be trusted to act responsibly. The darker and less palatable truth is that this legislation is being proposed because the politicians don’t trust us, the people, to act responsibly.
I write as editor of Edinburgh Review regarding a recent article by R D Kernohan (24 January). I am saddened to hear that Quarterly Review will no longer appear in print, and I was very pleased that you published this article, bringing attention to the difficulties involved for a literary journal to remain in print. However, I was surprised to read the following sentence: ‘The great Edinburgh Review closed in 1929 and though a high-class literary journal (originally the New Edinburgh Review) had revived the title I cannot trace on the internet an issue after September 2011’.
Contrary to this, Edinburgh Review is very much ongoing in print, publishing three issues a year. Five full and vibrant print issues have been published since September 2011. Moreover, we have an excellent website, continuously updated, which can be found at http://edinburgh-review.com. If one searches for ‘Edinburgh Review’ on Google, this is the first entry to appear.
Given the very real pressures for print journals that R D Kernohan otherwise accurately discusses in his article, I hope you can understand that I’m anxious of the effect this unfortunate misinformation might have on us. As such, I’d be extremely pleased if you could inform your readers of the error, and assure them of the ongoing good health and excellence of Edinburgh Review.
The Cafe is our readers’ forum. Send your contribution to islay@scottishreview.net
The Cafe is our readers’ forum. Send your contribution to islay@scottishreview.net
The Cafe is our readers’ forum. Send your contribution to islay@scottishreview.net
The Cafe is our readers’ forum. Send your contribution to islay@scottishreview.net