Glasgow essentially grew as a city in the Victorian era and all the statues (bar Burns) appear to be of Victorian figures, the latest being Gladstone.Originally Posted by Mike1
Why shouldn't it be appropriate? What could be more appropriate than a city in Scotland honoring Scots heroes? If this is inappropriate, then how appropriate is a statue of Queen Victoria or Prince Albert in that same location? If you are not interested in supporting the idea, then don't sign. Easy-peasy, right?
In the nineteenth century it was de rigeur for any large urban town or city to have a statue of Victoria and often Albert (to please Victoria) so the City Fathers no doubt considered such statues appropriate.
For Scots heroes they went for literary or science figures instead.
There is a Glasgow monument to Wallace at Robroyston which was erected by public subscription in 1900.
It can be viewed at http://www.glasgowguide.co.uk/images_ww.html .
And that's the other thing - funding. How popular would such a monument be with the council tax payers of Glasgow?
I would suggest that a petition to the Scottish Parliament would be more appropriate. The issue of celebrating such heroes (and this is not under dispute) is surely more of a national one for Scotland.
I regret that I cannot sign.
Bookmarks