David Starkey: Bringing History into Disrepute with Impunity?

Two paragraphs. Both true. So what is the significance of their juxtapoisition?

David Starkey CBE FSA FRHistS is a constitutional historian and a broadcaster. He is deemed an eminent historian, by which I assume is meant that he is a scholar, committed to academic integrity, and as such one who comments with authority, knowledge and that essential balance of ethical judgement which identifies the true public intellectual. As a CBE, he is publicly honoured for his services to historical research and the dissemination of scholarship that is accessible and trustworthy. As a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society he is recognised as one who meets exacting standards of intellectual enquiry, whose contribution to the scholarship of his discipline enhance the reputation of that august body, and whose public profile adds weight to an historic institution which values independence of thought, academic excellence and humane learning.

I am not a member of Scottish Nationalist Party. I have principled objections to nationalism, separatism, and political ambitions which focus on the self-interest of one country to the detriment of its existing relations, friendships and obligations. I have many friends who are members of the SNP, who voted Yes, who hope for a further referendum when as they see it the time is right. They fly the saltire, play the bagpipes, know their Scottish history, recognise the seriousness and far reaching consequences of the dismantling of the United Kingdom, and still press ahead. Not all SNP supporters are as responsible and thoughtful, like every political party it has its embarrassments, and at times its darker underside.

But the recent remarks of David Starkey, and his toxic comparison of the SNP with the Nazi party means that my two previous paragraphs should not be able to appear on the same page. Why? Because this is rogue mischief by a man who makes money out of controversy; who thrives on outrage; who spouts venom and toxin from behind the respectable facades of institutions which have honoured him. Because he may even believe that his distorted perceptions and wildly inane rhetoric are indeed accurate, wise, prescient insights which warn us of what we might be sleepwalking into. Or alternatively because he doesn't believe a word of it but boy does it get him headlines, contracts and money.

A constitutional historian in a fit of bile disenfranchises a swathe of voters who represent at least half of the Scottish nation by comparing their political goals, and the political process within which those goals are articulated, to pre-war Nazi Germany. Leaving aside the gratuitous obscenity of the comparison, the evidence adduced and argument developed demonstrates the kind of historical analysis that would require he resit a first year undergraduate essay on history. This man is FRHistS for goodness sake! So my modest question is this: what does a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society have to say or do to raise questions about his ongoing suitability to represent the values and aims of that institution? Or is such an honour irrevocable no matter what wild, weird and inflammatory nonsense a member utters as a recognised authority?

Comments

[Dave Summers]

I hadn't heard David Starkey's comment but I agree the comparison is toxic.
An English friend and ex-colleague of mine, who with her husband (also English) joined the SNP after the referendum, said to me recently that much of the fear in England of the SNP (which, I believe, was one of the main reasons David Cameron won a majority) is that they see the similarity in name with the British National Party and don't recognise that its ideology is entirely different. A perspective which hadn't occurred to me as a life-long Scottish (and indeed, north Scottish) resident.