The Undesirable Ideas of some Young Liberals Rejected by Liberals.
In our June issue we wrote a Note and Comment headed; “Young Liberals with Undesirable Ideas.” In this note we referred to a booklet entitled New Orbits issued by some young Liberals in London, in which they stated that “Sunday Observance Laws should be repealed . . . Betting shops should be made legal . . . The recommendations of the Wolfenden Report should be enacted . . . Divorce by consent should be introduced,” etc. We stated that this revealed the deformity of the thinking of these young Liberals, and we wondered if young Liberals in Scotland were involved in this publication. We condemned these views expressed from religious and moral grounds only. We have since received a letter from Sir Andrew Murray, Vice-Chairman, Scottish Liberal Party, on the subject and which we are indeed pleased to quote. Sir Andrew states: “The Free Presbyterian Magazine for June, 1959 questions whether this publication involves young Liberals in Scotland. The answer is most emphatically NO. Liberals in Scotland, young and old, had no part in the compilation of New Orbits, they had no knowledge of its preparation, and their views in regard to its contents had neither been sought nor ascertained. Thus it was that promptly upon publication the Scottish University Liberals and the Scottish Liberal Party issued an immediate disavowal both of the publication and its suggestions on Home Office reforms. It should be made clear that New Orbits was the production of seven young people and the views expressed were wholly their own alone . . . The offending statements on Home Office Reforms were unanimously rejected by the Congress of Young Liberals and the Union of Liberal Students at Manchester following upon publication, and thus, in no sense whatsoever can it be said to represent Liberal opinion or the trend of Liberal thought. Liberals regret that such views by seven young people even should have arisen . . . ” The aforesaid quotation sets forth the main part of Sir Andrew Murray’s letter, which we were relieved and satisfied to read. We, of course, were free from doing injustice to any in writing as we did on the basis of printed views. But we are sure readers will join with us in thanking Sir Andrew for his informative letter upon the subject.