Campaign Diary
- Mark Huitson
- Oct 23
- 20 min read
Updated: 16 minutes ago
A blog, chronicling the finders' opinions, thoughts and events as they campaign for the recognition of the obvious in an environment of academic and bureaucratic avoidance and denial
22.11.25: ‘Crossing the Street’
Naively in 2020, we imagined our find was nothing but good news for the area and for Scotland. Regardless of public values and attitudes towards heritage, finding another thread of Scottish history, enhancing an area of understanding still shrouded in mystery, could only be a good thing for all—considering Scotland’s uniqueness with its diverse population, was the sum of its impressive scenery, inimitable culture and vivid history. All we were doing was adding to that legend—enhancing the country’s heritage—adding another notable ancient warrior to its rollcall.
If we were going to upset some people, it perhaps would only be a few academics and local historians whom had overlooked the site’s history, carelessly lost in the nineteenth century. Whereas we could understand why that tiny group may present obstacle or reticence, we did not expect those, regardless of ideological, political, intellectual, or nationalistic viewpoint to choose to join that tiny group, not as dissenters, but avoiders, as those that might cross the street to evade encounter with a group of disagreeable pedestrians (us), or a conflict they might wish to avoid (our discovery).
One group we thought might impartially, seriously consider, and support our find were politicians—those who by their very purpose, regardless of political position, represent the interests of both the people and the country they serve. What could we have possibly brought that was so abhorrent? What did we bring that was not good news for the country, its legend, the people and the economy? What did we represent that coerced politicians to cross over and walk on the same side of the street as a few historians with bruised egos?
We had set out our discovery and argument comprehensively for all to interrogate. Anyone could choose to argue against it—or accept it. The evidence was well within the grasp of most people, so to ignore it when they were asked to consider it, without offering any cogent argument, could only be seen as negligent—not in the interests of the people nor the country.
Yesterday, Digger met (after eight months of cajolement) with another politician to discuss our case. He was in a long line of politicians we had repeatedly contacted over the last four years that included John Cooper, Angus Robertson, Brian Whittle, Carol Mochan, Colin Smyth, Craig Hoy, Emma Harper, Finlay Carson, Martin Whitfield, Oliver Mundell, Sharon Dowey, Mungo Fraser, Ian Murray, Stephen Kerr, Nicola Sturgeon, Sir Kier Starmer, Nigel Farage, Linda Dorward, Ivor Hyslop, Maureen Johnstone and Tracey Little.
The parliamentarian left the meeting with promises to do what he could within the parameters of governmental administration. We shall wait on his challenge to Historic Environment Scotland, to see if that beleaguered agency, in his view, acted properly in context of their legal requirement.
Listening in on the conference call, during Digger’s passionate entreaty, her anxiety was clearly on display within her argument—after suffering five years of inexcusable obfuscation by an ignorant establishment, causing us severe financial and family depravation, it was not surprising.
For all the promises made, we received the impression the Member of the Scottish parliament missed the point of what the discovery meant in terms of Scotland’s repute and world interest. We shall not be surprised if he joins the other side of the street along with his colleagues, listed above, to become another part of the sorry narrative surrounding this extraordinary case.
19.11.25: 'Blueprint'
Last night, I spoke with an international art lawyer, regularly published, renown in the art and antiquities market. He reiterated authoritative authentication of the find is everything if we hoped to find an appropriate new keeper for our bells and the church. He restated, regardless of our worthy case and peerless understanding of our bells, the market’s idea of provenance is not the ‘hard-won’ evidence that promotes the bells’ authenticity, but a recognised expert’s testimony or even the attribution provided by the collection from whence they came. For the market, superficial opinion by someone of status far outweighs evidence, perverse as that may seem.
Over the years we have had significant amounts of freely given advice from various legal minds, in absolute recognition of our find and the; ‘unfair and unjudicial treatment by systemic and inexcusable miscarried academic and bureaucratic behaviour [...] No logical individual could possibly review the petitions and archaeological inspection and find anything other than merited presentation—presentation leagues apart from the outmoded and superficial ill consideration that has been allowed to inappropriately define prior commercial and conservation proposals of the site’
All the lawyers agree a fundamental problem exists in that we, two people outside the academic and institutional establishment, have made a genuine discovery backed up with irrefutable evidence. Considering the establishment will not willingly endorse our find, perversely because of the resultant harm to public trust in the establishment, the lawyers propose only two options: to seek judicial review to resolve the lack of authoritative authentication of the find, under several heads of claim, while pressing home a significant media campaign to embarrass the authorities into action rather than offer obtuse avoidance. Both routes to authentication are expensive.
In legal terms, they confirm, in a case like ours there is no blueprint to gain authoritative authentication, even through legal remedy, as the issue crosses over several heads of claim, requiring deeper consideration by those best qualified to press home the case. ‘Expensive?’ Far beyond the resources of the average citizen.
We are told, not only do we present a remarkable discovery and a unique and priceless find both historical and financial, but we are having to go through the painful process of trial and failure to open the discussion to the wider public, illustrating what academic and amateur historians raise as problems amongst themselves, but never resolve. We are drawing up a blueprint for the merited historian to pierce institutional conceit, and this is why we are being ignored, not assisted.
17.11.25: Monument
Today I offer a longer diary entry than I would prefer, but after I marked Remembrance Sunday at Holywood’s war memorial, reading aloud the list of fallen soldiers to my little dog standing to attention by my side, and offering thanks for their sacrifice in the name of Pro Patria (for one's country), I wanted to commemorate some of the former ministers of Holywood, that by their own legends offered sacrifice for the greater good of their charge, in the name of peace rather than war.
Two of the six ministers that lay interrred in the churchyard had perhaps imbued Digger and I with a sense of justice, as we defended the men’s testimony against accusation of falsity made after their death—denigrating the men as unreliable witnesses and scholars. A sense of honour, dictating we should continue the men's charge and defend Holywood’s legend for the greater good, the parish and Scotland’s sake—in the name of truth.
I often stand before the Reverend Robert Kirkwood and Reverend Bryce Johnston’s memorials. They are situated around twenty feet from where I’m camped, so I pass them every day. I must admit, at times I stand before the men’s graves in either brief contemplation or, in darker days, in quiet prayer asking for their guidance.
It was in consideration of their original testimony, made for the eighteenth and nineteenth century Statistical Accounts of Scotland, and their conflicted view on the Holywood bells with that proposed by James Barbour in 1898, that set us on course for re-examination—to clarify whose testimony was more accurate.
Our assessment required reading all available publication to consider the legends of Johnston, Kirkwood and Barbour—taking measure of the men. But it was an unbiased appraisal of the bells that revealed only one conclusion. Our own investigation renounced Barbour’s examination as pure contrivance to suit a theory.
Barbour’s dismissal of Kirkwood and Johnstone’s prior testimonies, out-of-hand, was unchallenged by Barbour’s Antiquarian Society and by Academia following in its footsteps. Barbour’s conceit, protected by his status, was well documented in contrast to the ministers’ munificence, words and confessed charity towards humanity, and in turn their integrity and humility confirmed by their flock.
Just as Kirkwood and Johnston’s honest testimonies were dismissed, ours are too, because we also stand outside the accepted societal league of the historian class. In Barbour’s time, it was the Society of Antiquaries, now it is academia and their influence over heritage governance. This history 'club's' credo? “Status is everything, and singular-formed opinion is all that counts—any contrary presentation of fact is simply an inconvenience to ignore.” (Henri Hueςon)
***
In reverence to the two ministers and remembrance of their deeds, during the summer I considered pruning back the overgrowth and tidying up their graves.
Armed with pruners and gloves, I took greater notice of the abundance of berries on the vines, butterflies on branches, and bees collected around the flowers. As I stood back to think, I noticed small birds in the yew and even more birds on the elder.
I re-read the prose on the stone—words dedicated to the men’s charity and holiness. I reflected on the time of their existence, their greater Christian presence, their words in publication, and the legend they had left behind.
Kirkwood, who was an avid naturalist and Johnston, a keen agriculturalist, both eloquent in Latin and sermon—praised by the parish and their peers. I wondered what the reverends would want. How I should tend the garden that had formed around their monuments. If I should deprive the butterflies, bees and birds of their playground. Then a weasel appeared from under a broken stone and in customary fashion threw abuse my way. I took the little carnivore’s vociferous advice, rudely offered. I preserved nature’s abundance set about the men’s graves and left all as it should be—in greater remembrance that everything born of this earth, grows accordingly to its nature, and then returns to the earth from whence it sprang—man’s ambition and interference in the meantime, means little in the greater plan.
16.11.25: ‘Back on the Carousel’
On advice from our legal advocacy, we are preparing our fourth (or is it fifth?) ride on the carousel, hoping we will arrive at an academic institution with integrity placed above conceit—an academic reviewer that will selflessly acknowledge the merit and evidence we present, and help bring this momentous discovery into the public domain.
But it is a carousel, and as such we should expect nothing other than to go around and around visiting the same view, again and again. Still, we hope, even with the acceptance integrity is in short supply within the establishment, that an organisation, at the very least, will see past bias and look at our case as an opportunity for themselves.
We need to demonstrate, without question, that we continue to present our case to academia, asking for its help. We will, of course, continue to record their responses as testimony, perversely and probably generating a narrative that supports our claim of Templar provenance, not from academic authentication, but from the complete absence of supportable disavowal, even if it is in the form of deliberate and unreasoned evasion.
We are approaching thirty-eight UK universities; those offering medieval history post-graduate scholarship, requesting assistance in authentication of this extraordinary discovery. Then we shall move onto international academies, asking for the same evaluation.
We shall report our ‘success’ on the website in the new year.
15.11.25: ‘Tying up loose threads’
The most significant problem with previous late eighteenth and nineteenth century interpretations of the Holywood bells was not Latin and heraldic misinterpretation, but an absence of follow through on the anomalies presented by or on the bells. Issues ‘glossed over’ either by ignoring or adding elements purely to support the interpreters’ subjective theory, rather than proper consideration obtained through further research.
We scrutinised any anomaly we found to find answers. It made sense to research the issues presented, as there appeared to be significant gaps in general understanding, not only in terms of medieval epigraphy and bell archaeology, but the circumstance that would lead a knight to take the title Masculus and its classical interpretation, rather than accepting the modern understanding of the Latin term, or the unevidenced and unworkable theory presented by a Victorian archivist to why William le Riche, de Maule, lord of Fowlis, would call himself William Masculus.
Whereas we could not offer one hundred per cent certainty in our conclusions, we had tested them with comprehensive forensic consideration, research and elimination to ensure the probability for each conclusion was far higher than reasonable expectation.
One thread however remained irritatingly unsolved, why Austin of Walpole would carry the same arms as on the Holywood bell, despite Austin having no apparent connection to Holywood or William le Riche. We left the conundrum unsolved, as it did not affect the investigation’s conclusion, as with the death of William le Riche the consequences to his personal armorial had little relevance to the aim of our study. However recently (the benefits of leaving the investigation and report open) we became aware of William’s presence as a witness on a charter granting lands by Thomas of Wabrun (Woburn?) to a Norfolk abbey a mere forty miles from Walpole. The charter was aberrant in that it is the only charter so far found that places William outside Scotland/Northumberland—Coincidence?
Only deep-dive research will turn coincidence into possibility; conjecture Wiiliam le Riche, in the absence of a direct male line, bequested his armorial to a non-relative; perhaps a retainer or friend of his close acquaintance. Conjecture, however, is likely as far as we will achieve.
However, regardless whatever was found it would not change the conclusions of the bells’ origins.
13.11.25: ‘Anger?’
Yesterday, a journalist asked me if I was angry about being ignored by the local council, HES, DPEA, etc, etc. I replied, ‘Not angry, frustrated.’ The journalist pressed how felt about these organisations. ‘Surely, I was angry that they dismissed our claims of Templar connection out of hand?’ I corrected him, ‘Claims—implies allegation. It is better to state they dismissed our evidence out of hand. And as for anger… no, I feel pity, because to feel angry, to quote Betrand Russell, is a sign that we are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as we do.’ The journalist asked me to expand.
I explained, ‘We presented an indisputable web of evidence and fact; so undeniable, no one has dismantled it whatsoever. It is akin (quoting Russell again) that these organisations, in their denial, want to believe two and two make five. Or that our discovery will disappear from their 'desks' if they bury their heads and ignore it. No, I am not angry, I feel pity for them. We do not offer opinion on the remarkable provenance of the bells; we provide fact, not drawn from superficial interpretation but contemporary evidence. Only the establishment offers baseless opinion and ignorance, not us—and their opinion and ignorance on examination exposes that their action and inaction clearly goes beyond what the evidence warrants… much to their disgrace and stupidity.’
Betrand Russell (1872 –1970), philosopher, logician, mathematician, referenced from his essay, An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish (1943)
08.11.25: 'SANCTI'
All over the world, thousands of hours of earnest historical research are denied consideration because it is made outside the halls of academia. While too much academic historical consideration has become nothing more than a social-political weapon—historical revision wielded in the cause of personal philosophical agenda to indoctrinate a new generation, rather than presenting historical truth.
Regrettably, it appears the disciplined sainted historian does not exist anymore; they who chronicle truth regardless of consequence to themselves.
SANCTI
Selfless—those historians that have more concern with presenting the truth, than preserving selfish ambition, bias and desire.
Aware—those historians that seek a comprehensive understanding, rather than espousing knowledge presented by others.
Natural—genuine individuals, not influenced by groupthink, but by their own unique intellectual authority.
Courageous—those who do not take part in the lie, but exhibit mental strength, eschewing self-preservation, whilst withstanding fear and difficulty.
Talented—those historians that have natural skill or ability. Quality over qualification.
Integrity—Honest people with strong moral principles.
05.11.25: ‘Ignorance’
I had a debate last night with a social media commentator, who took the opinion our removal of the bells from Holywood Church was illustration of the dangers of passing historic properties into private ownership. Why the council were right to enforce the bells return. That if they did not, ‘our heritage would be stripped clean in the name of profit or negligence’.
I asked the commentator if they had read the case and fully understood the issues? The commentator clumsily avoided my question, declaring, ‘our theories were not reason enough to remove the bells.’ In return, I asked, what they regarded as theory? Again, the commentator avoided a cogent reply.
In counter to their defence of heritage remaining in the public sector, I cited Historic Environment Scotland's fundamental failures to maintain the historic properties in its care - a story currently featured in the national press. I supplementated my observation with our own case study, and the public agency's undeniable and catastrophic failure to understand the heritage it was supposed to protect. That if it were not for our intercession, in private ownership, a significant understanding of the history of Holywood would be lost. That, whether in private or public ownership there was no guarantee of sustainability, unless the public cared enough to support heritage regardless of ownership.
I recommended the commentator interrogate the evidence and argument on our website and come back to me at a later date to take up the debate again. We shall see if they do.
‘without interrogating the facts, letting scepticism fuel our opinions, is holding on to ignorance, and in ignorance we do not understand, and without understanding our opinions are hollow and illusory.’ Barriers to Authentication
31.10,25: 'Talent'
Historic Environment Scotland (our nemisis) are having a hard time of it in the press at the moment. Well, their governance and management mostly. But if you look at the lack of value the ‘accused’ bring to the historical keep of Scotland, there is a much wider problem of similar misbehaviour wherever you look. HES’s poor governance and delivery is not abnormal, it is regrettably the norm.
Inefficiency, poor management and self-service rule in public governance rather than selfless public service, value, professionality and effectiveness. This is not to say there is no professional minded talent, challenge and selfless public commitment within these organisations, but it would be naive to suggest it is the norm, or that the systems and processes public agencies employ to counter a lack of employable talent or misbehaviour is a guarantee of excellence and improvement.
Talent rarely rises to the top in public service because talent is seen as a threat to those that rely on arrogance and influence to secure status and position rather than demonstrable merit. This statement, I would think, is well evidenced.
29.10.25: Churchill
‘One of the signs of a great society is the diligence with which it passes culture from one generation to the next. This culture is the embodiment of everything the people of that society hold dear: its religious faith, its heroes.....when one generation no longer esteems its own heritage and fails to pass the torch to its children, it is saying in essence that the very foundational principles and experiences that make the society what it is are no longer valid. This leaves that generation without any sense of definition or direction, making them the fulfilment of Karl Marx's dictum, 'A people without a heritage are easily persuaded.' What is required when this happens and the society has lost its way, is for leaders to arise, who have not forgotten the discarded legacy and who love it with all their hearts. They can then become the voice of that lost generation, wooing an errant generation back to the faith of their fathers, back to the ancient foundations and bedrock values.’
(Stephen Mansfield - Never Give In, The Extraordinary Character of Winston Churchill)
28.10.25: ‘Truth that hurts, but strengthens our argument’
Historic Environment Scotland (HES) were recently in the news again, HES faces £842m repair backlog for historic properties. The exposé corroborated the observation made in our own article published in February, that the closure, restricted access, and scaffolding around many HES owned sites in Dumfries and Galloway were the result of the agency playing catch up with routine maintenance. Essential cyclical conservation that had failed to be scheduled whilst still in the ownership of its predecessors, Historic Scotland. It was another damning indictment of HES’s failure. HES, no doubt will cite reasons why its failure is not the agency’s fault, but due to the economy, rising costs, global warming, Covid and declining visitor numbers, etc… but the truth is HES’s problems have been decades in the making; not through financial hardship, but promoted by systemic poor management, inefficiency and yes—public and political indifference to Scotland’s history.
21.10.25: Facebook
Digger and I try to avoid social media. We feel false news, provocation and bias opinion dominate. In our past commercial experience, social media used to inform and entertain, but now it seems to skew circumstance more than informs, with entertainment that is more often facile than inventive. Hence, following a flurry of activity in 2024 in the hope of promoting productive discourse on our case, we no longer actively promote on social media. However, we do provide a Facebook page to facilitate public comment and discussion.
As such, without media promotion, our case remains relatively unknown. Following three years of banging our heads against institutional and academic illogicality, we appreciate there are now only two paths open to us—legal remedy and media promotion.
Therefore, we must park our personal preferences and use social media selectively to promote our case in debate and public awareness. We are still guarded against the dissent political and religious viewpoint often generates on social media, with single-minded belief, aggression and abuse often replacing reason, logic, and the respect of opposing opinion—and a desire to reach a mutually beneficial accord. However, we are prepared to grow the thick skins required to survive.
If you have a comment to make on anything presented on our website, please use our Facebook page to engage in open debate or comment, or better still engage with us directly so we can enter productive discourse based on empathy and understanding of the issues presented. Helpful comment, including reasoned counterargument will be incorporated onto the website for all to read and consider.
13.10.25: Historic Environment Scotland – A Malignant Caretaker
In February 2025, we wrote a report for an article on our website, titled; Historic Environment Scotland – ‘A Malignant Caretaker’. It illustrated the gross delinquency of the government’s agency as it attempted to avoid carrying out one of its prime functions, ie., ‘to provide an up-to-date understanding of historic sites to aid decision-making about potential change.’
We had been sparring with Historic Environment Scotland (HES) for four years for it to honour its responsibility regarding the listing of Holywood Church in Dumfriesshire. Our report was a necessary chronicle, charting the insane obstruction we were experiencing achieving authoritative authentication for an irrefutable and significant medieval Knights Templar discovery—a massive historical coup for Scotland.
In recent conversations with legal advocacy, despite our frustrations, they advised keeping dialogue open with HES, as we revisited our challenge to HES over its current listing of the bells of Holywood Church, and the significant and extraordinary impact the truth makes to the existing definition of the historic property, in stark contrast to HES’s artificial listing.
We asked the question would we see common sense prevail? Or was the Scottish government, exemplified by HES, heading for a historical scandal?
However, considering a recent news article in the Scottish Daily Express: Historic Environment Scotland boss suspended following probe into her conduct , including connected stories and recent insider intelligences, it is unlikely HES’s management and their political handlers will do anything but double down—try and remove itself from any action that would authenticate or mentor our discovery.
This further institutional avoidance was implied when HES reported to the Directorate for Culture and External Affairs, in April 2025, that it would consider removing the bells from the current listing if they were not returned, removing its obligation to both protect the bells under current legislation or recognise them for what they represent. We can only offer up conjecture why this would be so.
We will never, I suspect, have the truth of it. But we know HES know exactly what these bells are. They have not and cannot disavow the discovery because it is so complete, so evidenced, so compelling. HES would rather deprive the Scottish public of their understanding of history than admit their records are outdated, and that talent for historical investigation lies in the acumen of the individual and not within the reign of the supercilious heritage and academic establishment.
11.10.25: 'X'
I tuned into ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) to see what chatter existed regarding our case recently published in the local news. Digger and I are not fans, nor users of social media outside necessary engagement concerning Holywood Church and its bells' future. We, however, accept social media is a very popular vehicle for sharing opinion and mutual interest, a celebration of what individuals perceive as good, and condemnation of what they see as bad.
On the existing posts, concerning our case there were no comments, likes nor engagement, with less than 400 views. No debate, no rhetoric, no condemnation, no support, no incensed heritage conservationists decrying out action, no questions, no challenge. There in fact was nothing evidenced but public disinterest, perhaps indicating why local journalists avoid any deep dive into the full story... who would care?
03.10.25: Winter Cometh—Dark days ahead
With the shorter, colder days approaching, the high humidity inside the church begins to show itself. The walls, again run with rivers of condensation and the humidity meters within, show over ninety percent, regardless of the outside reading. Everything is damp through. The deviation in 2023, between the outside and inside humidity was plus fifteen percent, but with the large stained-glass window blown out by the storms and a recent window breaking by vandals, we perversely have improved ventilation. We expect this year the deviation to be lower. With more slates off the roof, and guttering beyond redemption, it means more water inside. However, I suspect the barn owl roosting in the church during the day, is taking advantage of the humid, warm air.
This morning was colder than of late, and I was met with a blast of warm humid air when I entered the church first thing this morning. My mind played tricks, even though I knew the situation with humidity problem. Still, I had to tell myself there was no blaze in the church to fight with fire extinguisher and buckets, such was the marked increase in temperature in the entrance hallway of the unheated building, on comparison to the chilly outside.
02.10.25; The government’s declaration of war on historical understanding
We have been patiently waiting for the Scottish government’s decision on whether the local council’s enforcement notice on us to return the bells to the church tower was sound. There were principles at stake. It was the balance of us finding extraordinary circumstances, and pragmatically breaking the rules, removing architectural fittings to remove them to temporary safety, which is what the council are complaining about, against the practicalities of the case which included a property listing that is woefully inadequate (and misleading) for the proper consideration of the building and the bells’ conservation, a mis-sold church that requires millions of pounds to refurbish (rather than the £150,000 quoted to us at point of sale), and two bells that should be in a secure museum, recognised for what they are, and not left, locked in a empty church in Dumfriesshire with a necessary £85,000 per year security bill to ensure the bells’ protection on-site, not to mention insurance against potential theft or damage of two bells judged by insurers, not on the current errant property listing, but our "entirely credible" archaeological report, to be worth in the tens and tens of millions.
It is neither practical, nor affordable to refurbish the mis-sold church purely for the building’s sake, or to appease the planners' refusal to look at the whole case.
The building cannot become our home as planned, which the council refuse to acknowledge. The council refuses to recognise their previous responsibility for its previous errant planning permissions or the deceit of the previous woeful conservation plan drafted, not in understanding of the building's heritage, as per the council's own policies, but in ignorance.
There is no way any sane person would spend around £140,000 to return the world’s only provenanced Templar artefacts to an empty, dilapidated building sealed from the public, and spend up to £20,000 per month in security, simply because the Scottish Government does not care about Scotland’s heritage, only its own bureaucratic intent, littered with demonstrable failure.
And what of the future for the building? We proposed creating the opportunity of transferring the bells to a new keeper, hopefully a Scottish national museum (difficult as they refuse to acknowledge the bells true history), and use the money to create a publicly accessible archaeological project within the church and then refurbish it as a signpost to the area's spiritual heritage, with a trust fund to see it open to the public in perpetuity. However the council are not interested in the future of the church, only its own bureaucracy administered by its own woeful gatekeepers. I remind the readers, Dumfries and Galloway are near the bottom of the league of council areas, in terms of crime, education, health and community... only to be pipped to bottom place by Glasgow City... and it has nothing to do with location.
Faced with a fine of £20,000 and even imprisonment, against the cost of meek compliance with the council of around £260,000 while we battle to find the last vestiges of integrity within academia or the establishment, to help us realise this tremendous discovery... what would you do? Of course the council, know they cannot win the case (in a fair judicial system) but they would see us expending tens of thousand of pounds to defend our position and the bells' safety, all to prove Dumfries and Galloway are a poor authority... which every already knows.
'The government’s declaration of war on historical understanding, ' is the heading to this blog entry... we will go further; the Scottish Government is prejudiced against its own history, it discards, rather than celebrates it. And considering the only unique aspects of the nation, is its landscape, its history and its culture, what kind of Scotland is the government building?
Why can we say and ask this? Because the Scottish Government have again declared the evidenced history and provenance of the bells is not material to their decision making… which makes all the heritage policy and law they claim they are enforcing, hypocritical.
And for us, if we cannot find support and common sense from those around us, we are destined for jail, because there is no way we will risk the safety of some of the most valuable and poignant remnants of Christian heritage, simply to appease the failures of what should be prudent and judicial governance in Scotland.
01.10.25: Time to Refresh
Editing the blog is becoming compromised with its length, so it is time to archive the entries from March to September 2025 and continue afresh.
Digger has coaxed me to leave anger and frustration out of my entries (for the sake of variety!) and walk on with a more positive and objective outlook to the end of our journey. It is a new phase, so perhaps its time to refresh and rearm. We have exhausted any hope of pragmatic support from the Scottish Establishment, so any criticism we direct against it will be evidenced when we go to the wider public to broadcast our case—as our legal advocates phrased it, in the title of their latest report; ‘The Templar Bells Dilemma.'
