I REFER to the letter by Jake Chambers of Golspie (June 10). He notes that since the murder of George Floyd and the case for the removal of the statues of those responsible for promoting the slave trade, there has been a revival of the debate to remove the statue to the 1st Duke of Sutherland – George Granville Levenson Gower (also known as the Marquis of Stafford) – which stands on a 100ft column on the top of Ben Bhraggie, overlooking Golspie and can been seen, due to its prominent position, for miles.
I disagree with the conclusion of Mr Chambers that the statue should remain, for the reasons I will give below.
Removal of the statue is not a matter of removing history. I propose the exact opposite. There should still be a monument on top of Ben Bhraggie that can be seen for miles, not to the Duke of Sutherland but to correct history and commemorate those who died, were killed or burned in their homes by the action of Patrick Sellar, under the auspices of the Duke of Sutherland.
READ MORE: We cannot change the past, but we can choose who to honour
It was clearly established under the Nuremberg Trials at the end of the Second World War that as the leader of the regime just because you did not “pull the switch or whatever” you were still guilty of genocide as the actions were done under your auspices.
Similarly, Patrick Sellar, the factor for the Duke of Sutherland, was acting under the auspices of the Duke when during the spring of 1814 he brutally removed the crofters from the lands of Strathnaver (East Sutherland).
On the April 26 1816, Patrick Sellar was tried in a “kangaroo court” convened in Inverness, under Judge Pitmilly, for “culpable homicide” in order to drive the people from the land. He was found not guilty.
J G Leith has written an excellent expose on the trial of Patrick Sellar, titled, The Man Who Went To Farr – Patrick Sellar And The Sutherland Experiment. His book includes the historical statements made at the time which sum up the nature of the “kangaroo court”.
READ MORE: We must face up to history – good, bad and ugly
Judge Pitmilly, in helping the jury, stated: “They ought to take into view the character of the accused [Sellar] for this was always of importance in balancing contradictory testimony”– in other words ignore the evidence of the people who saw their relatives burned alive in their cottages.
The judge on the result stated that “the verdict met with his perfect concurrence ... Sellar had been the victim of instigators ... who had incited the deluded people” – the mind boggles.
Afterwards, an extract from the Military Register 23rd August 1815 states: “There is no quarter of Scotland to which they [Young and Sellar] may retire after having feathered their nests in Sutherland, but they will pass through life with the halter constantly about their neck and upon my word, sir, it is but a sorry description of neck cloth.” This says it all – they were guilty.
Double jeopardy has been removed from Scots Law. Patrick Sellar can now be posthumously tried for the culpable homicide committed in Strathnaver in order to drive the people from the land to make way for his sheep. However, I suggest that it won’t be necessary as the jury of the people of Scotland have found him guilty.
READ MORE: Arguments could be made for the removal of almost every statue
Just to put Jake Chambers’s letter in the context of the local population I have an old friend who has retired and returned to Sutherland, to the area he was born, “near the shadows of Ben Bhraggie”, whose surname, and those of his ancestors, is the same as most of the people who were driven from Strathnaver by Patrick Sellar. His view, for the 60 years that I have known him, has unwaveringly been that the statue should be removed.
Now returning to the aspect of the monument and to have a physical permanent memorial to correct history. The statue to the Duke of Sutherland should be removed. However, the column and large plinth should remain with a major plaque attached which states: “This monument is to commemorate the people of Strathnaver who in the spring of 1814 were driven from the land and in some instances killed or burned alive in their cottages by the actions of Patrick Sellar acting in the capacity of factor to and under the auspices of the Duke of Sutherland”. Then let the ancestors of Patrick Sellar and the Duke of Sutherland, if they are so inclined, take the matter to the courts if they disagree.
Stewart Dickson
Skirling, By Biggar
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel